Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in, the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Saltburn and Marske-by-the-Sea Urban District Council Bill,

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Rhyl Urban District Council Bill,

As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

ECCLESIASTICAL PENSIONS.

Mr. LUNN: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India the number of persons in this country drawing pensions of an ecclesiastical character on 31st December, 1934, from India, and the cost of these pensions to Indian revenues?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The number on 31st March last was 158 and the cost to Indian revenues £70,032 a year.

TANGASSERI.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, in a memorial presented to the Governor of Madras on 5th March, 1935, the inhabitants of Tangasseri have protested to the Government for the fourth time against their proposed transfer to the State of Travancore, stating that the laws of Travancore prohibit the erection of churches or the enclosing of cemeteries without special Government permission and impose on Christians forfeiture of the right of succession to property, and that there is no Caste Disabilities Removal Act in
Travancore, as in British India; and, in view of these disabilities imposed on Christians and this renewed protest of an almost entirely Christian community, will he refuse to approve the transfer?

Mr. BUTLER: I have seen a copy of the memorial referred to. I have nothing to add to the reply given to my Noble Friend's Question on 4th February.

Duchess of ATHOLL: In view of the unsatisfactory character of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall draw attention to this matter at the earliest opportunity

PRISONERS

Mr. T. SMITH: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, as a mark of clemency in connection with the celebration of the Silver Jubilee of His Majesty the King-Emperor, and in order to create a suitable atmosphere for the inauguration of the new constitution, it is contemplated by the Government of India to release such Indians as are interned or imprisoned for offences without violence in connection with political propaganda?

Mr. BUTLER: It is not proposed to make any release of prisoners in connection with the Jubilee. I would, however, point out that the number of persons imprisoned for offences of the nature stated is now extremely small. In accordance with the policy now in force the number of civil disobedience prisoners had already been reduced to 67 at the end of February, and there have no doubt been further releases since then.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the number include Pandit Jawahrlal Nehru?

Mr. BUTLER: The figures I gave are of civil disobedience prisoners in which category he is not included.

Mr. THORNE: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it would give general satisfaction in India if this suggestion were carried into effect?

Mr. BUTLER: I fear I have nothing to add to the terms of my original answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (HIGHLAND AREA).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he
has yet received from the Government of India their views with regard to the proposed legislation in Kenya by Order in Council affecting the highland area in that Colony; and whether he has conveyed the views of the Government of India to the Colonial Office?

Mr. BUTLER: My right hon. Friend has not yet received the considered views of the Government of India in regard to question. but is expecting them shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIAN GULF (BRITISH INTERESTS)

Lieut. - Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether British sovereignty, which has been maintained over a portion of Basidu island, in the Persian Gulf, for over a hundred years, has now been formally abandoned; and, if so, what, if any, steps have been taken to safeguard the British cemetery at Basidu, wherein many British seamen of all ranks have been buried during the past century?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): The regular use of the station at Basidu on the Persian island of Qishm, by His Majesty's ships has been discontinued since 1911. The local climatic conditions are unhealthy and the place was not British territory. His Majesty's Government recently decided that British interests in the Persian Gulf would best be served by the transfer of the station to Bahrain on the Arab side of the Gulf; and, in accordance with this decision, the station at Basidu is now being evacuated. Arrangements are under discussion with the Persian Government for the proper safeguarding of the British cemetery at Basidu.

Sir A. WILSON: Is it not the fact that for more than 100 years the British flag has been flown there and that repeatedly statements have been made that it is British territory; and has that position not been pointed out frequently to the Persian Government?

Sir J. SIMON: I think the terms of my original answer show that the place has not been regarded as British territory.

Sir A. WILSON: Why should news of the abandonment of a British naval station reach us from Delhi instead of by an announcement from His Majesty's Government to this House especially having regard to the very ancient connection which exists in this case as the right hon Gentleman has already explained?

Sir J SIMON: I cannot answer that question I did not know that the announcement had reached the hon Gentlemen from Delhi.

Sir A WILSON: In view of the very unsatisfactory reply of the right hon. Gentleman and the importance of the issue involved, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.

Sir A. WILSON: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Persian Government have now finally abandoned their claim to sovereignty over the islands of Bahrain?

Sir J. SIMON: The Persian claim to the islands of Bahrain, which has frequently been advanced in the past, has not, so far as I am aware, been abandoned; but His Majesty's Government, who have been in close treaty relations with the rulers of Bahrain since 1820, do not regard, and have never regarded that claim as possessing any validity whatever.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ARMED FORCES.

Mr. RHYS: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any estimate of the number of men to be under arms on 30th April, 1935, in present circumstances in France, Germany, Italy, Czechoslovakia, and Russia, as compared with 1st October, 1934?

Sir J. SIMON: It is not possible to give anything like exact estimates for particular dates.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA

KWEICHOW PROVINCE (BRITISH RESIDENTS).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement with regard to the advance of the
Communist army on the capital of Kweichow Province, in China; and what steps have been taken to secure the protection of the British residents in that place?

Sir J SIMON: My latest information dated 27th March was to the effect that the body of Communists which was advancing from the North on Kweiyang was moving in another direction out of the province westwards His Majesty's consular officers have issued all necessary warnings and are in as possible Last November British Missionaries withdrew from all stations in Kweichow province thought to be in danger

BRITISH BOOKS(REPRINTS)

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that unauthorized reprints of British educational books are being sold in Shanghai at low prices, and that in consequence firms importing the same books form England are left with stocks on their hands; and whether he will direct His Majesty's Minister in China to suggest to the Chinese Government the desirability of signing the Berne Copyright Convention?

Sir J. SIMON: It, is I am informed, a fact that such reprints are sold in China. In 1931 His Majesty's Government drew the attention of the Chinese Government to the desirability of China improving her copyright law and acceding to the international copyright convention. I will consider the position with a view to further representations should they seem likely to be useful.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the usual practice is to photograph these books and sell the copies at something like one-third of the value at which they come into the country to the very great hardship of importers of British products?

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (SUCCESSION STATES).

Mr. SANDY'S: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are, in association with other leading European Powers, still endeavouring to promote a system of closer economic co-operation between the succession States; and, if so, what progress has been made?

Sir J. SIMON: His Majesty's Government view with sympathy the effort to promote closer economic co-operation between the succession States. So far as I am aware, however, no negotiations are in progress at present.

Mr. SANDYS: May I ask whether His Majesty's Government recognise that no political guarantees for Austria's independence would be of much value without a settlement of her economic problems; and whether the right hon. Gentleman can assure the House that that aspect of the question will receive serious consideration at Stresa?

Sir J. SIMON: I cannot give any undertaking about Stresa. Of course, the initiative in such matters as the economic relations between the succession States cannot come from us, but I am perfectly ready to subscribe to the proposition that the political and economic aspect have to be borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Miss WARD: 16.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that, owing to the restrictions of the royal warrant, the pension allowance that was in issue to Alfred William Hagan, son of the late Gunner Thomas Hagan, No. 35,032, Royal Field Artillery, who died as a result of war service in September, 1923, ceased at the age of 21, although the orphan is a cripple and is consequently unable to contribute in any way to his self-support; and whether, in view of this fact, he will consider amending the royal warrant with the object of ensuring that allowances are continued to totally incapacitated war orphans for so long as such incapacity exists?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The hon. Member is perhaps not fully informed as to the facts of this case. The young man's mother is at present in receipt of alternative pension as a widow at a rate which actually gives her the same income as if she were drawing with her flat rate pension an additional allowance for her son. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a question from the hon. and gallant Members for
Northampton(Sir M Manningham-Buller) and Coventry (Captain Strickland) on 27th ultimo, and to other similar answers of which I am sending her a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

BRITISH CYCLES (CHINESE MARKET).

Captain HUNTER: 17.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the Commercial Counsellor in China has visited or will visit the important cycle manufacturing centre of Barton-on-Humber to confer with the manufacturers there with reference to the possible extension of the Chinese market for cycles, in view of the road construction programme now in progress in China?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): No, Sir. It is the established practice of overseas officers home on official duty to accord interviews either at the Department of Overseas Trade or by arrangement at the more important Chambers of Commerce in the United Kingdom. I suggest, therefore, that the manufacturing interests at Barton-on-Humber should either arrange to meet the Commercial Counsellor at the Department or alternatively approach a Chamber of Commerce in their vicinity.

IMPORT DUTIES (APPLICATIONS).

Mr. CHORLTON: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the rapid fall in values and increase in amount of certain imports into this country necessitating another application to the Advisory Committee, a very long process for small and not well-organised industries, he will himself arrange to make such applications in the shortest time for such industries?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) on the 4th April.

Mr. CHORLTON: Is there any intention on the part of the Department to assist in the preparation of cases for industries of a smaller type which have not got the organisation to prepare such cases?

Dr. BURGIN: There can be no question of His Majesty's Government approaching the Import Duties Advisory Committee. The committee must follow the procedure laid down by this House in the Import Duties Act. If small industries or anybody else have any difficulty in presenting their case to the committee, it is only a matter of seeing one of the officers to obtain any assistance they may require.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: What provision of the Import Duties Act prevents His Majesty's Government making representations to the committee?

Dr. BURGIN: The plain terms of the Act.

FRANCO-GERMAN AGREEMENT.

Mr. THORNE: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any information in connection with the Franco-German Agreement signed in Paris on 31st March, 1935; and how long the agreement is to operate?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Franco-German Agreement which was signed on 30th March. This agreement prolongs the operation of the existing Franco-German clearing agreement until the 1st July, 1935, and provides for the opening of negotiations for a new arrangement before the 1st June.

CHINA AND JAPAN.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the trade negotiations now in progress between the Chinese and Japanese Governments, and the proposal that a monopoly of the manufactured cotton trade shall be given to Japan in return for China supplying Japan with raw cotton at specially favourable rates; and whether he proposes to take any action in this matter to safeguard British interests?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have no information regarding any such negotiations.

IMPORTED MOTOR TYRES AND COVERS (VALUES).

Mr. H. WILLIAMSM: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the low
average value declared in respect of the imports recently of the covers and inner-tubes of both motor-car and motor-cycle tyres; and whether he will take steps to have the accuracy of the valuation specially checked?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I am not aware that Customs Duty on imported motor tyres and tubes is being charged on less than the statutory value, but if my hon. Friend will send me particulars of any case he has in mind I will have inquiries made.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it the case that the statutory value is normally the value as declared, and that this declared value may be low as the result of importation at dumped prices; and, if that be so, will that matter be taken into consideration with a view to action next Monday?

STEAMSHIP "QUEEN MARY" (PLYWOOD PANELLING).

Mr. McENTEE: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a large order for plywood panelling for the Cunard liner "Queen Mary," for which the Government subsidy is being paid, has been given to a firm in Germany; whether the plywood panelling in question is to be constructed from Empire timbers; whether any consideration was given to the wages and conditions of employment in the firm to whom the order has been given; and why this order was not given to one of the many British firms specialising in the manufacture of such panelling

Mr. COOPER: As I have previously stated, I have been informed by Cunard White Star, Limited, that it is their aim and intention to use British materials in the construction and equipment of the "Queen Mary" to the maximum possible extent. I understand on inquiry that in this particular detail, while the panelling will be made in this country, it has been thought necessary to obtain the requisite material from Germany owing to the great disparity in price.

Mr. McENTEE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is no country in the world where better material for this purpose can be made than in this country; that in the sending out of the inquiries some people were asked to quote who were not plywood merchants
at all, and that no discretion or intelligence was shown in the sending out of the inquiries?

Mr. COOPER: I am not aware of the facts suggested in the last part of the question. As to the first part, I share the hon. Member's view that our industry should be highly protected, but there are limits to the amount of protection that any industry can be afforded.

Mr. HANNON: Are the Government definitely committed to this order, and could the material, in point of fact, not be supplied by this country?

Mr. COOPER: It is not a Government order at all. It is Government subsidised—or not subsidised, but guaranteed—on a certain amount of expenditure on the "Queen Mary." We have had an undertaking from the line that they will, where possible, use British material. In this case the panelling work, which represents the greater part of the expenditure, will have to be done, in this country, but the wood itself could not be obtained in this country without, an extra expenditure of 80 per cent.

Mr. McENTEE: Is the hon. Member aware that the wood itself can be obtained within the Empire, and that the panelling is made up of pieces of wood all of which can be obtained within the Empire and all of which can be assembled and manufactured here better than anywhere else in the world?

Oral Answers to Questions — POTATO MARKETING SCHEME.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 18.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that under the potato marketing scheme the price fixed at which authorised merchants are required to sell to retailers is about 70s. a ton, but that they can buy at 30s. or 40s. per ton from. the registered producer, and that even at that price producers find it difficult to dispose of their produce; and will he advise the Potato Marketing Board to reduce the price at which the authorised merchant must sell in order to increase the demand and so give the registered producer a better chance to dispose of his produce?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): With regard to the first part of the question, I am informed by the Potato Marketing Board that they have
not fixed the prices at which authorised merchants shall sell to retailers. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I wonder whether the Marketing Board can take any steps to make that fact clear, because the farmers in my part of the world appear to be under a different impression?

Mr. ELLIOT: I think the Noble Lady's question and the answer to it will have the effect of disseminating the information desired.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the case that these wholesalers are selling for 70s. a ton and buying at about 30s. to 40s. a ton?

Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOTTERIES AND SWEEPSTAKES (CORRESPONDENCE).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLANDTROYTE: 20
asked the Postmaster-General (1) whether letters dealing with the Irish sweepstakes which are opened by his Department are returned to the writers or destroyed;
(2) whether the money paid for telegrams dealing with the Irish sweepstakes which are held up by his Department is refunded to the senders;
(3) the number of letters and telegrams stopped by his Department dealing with the Irish sweepstakes on the Grand National; and whether any and, if so, how much extra expense has been caused to his Department in dealing with this matter?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): Letters containing remittances are returned to the sender except in cases in which the money is ordered to be forfeited by a, Court in pursuance of Section 30 (3) of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934. I regret that I do not see my way to give an undertaking that the charges in respect of any telegram which may be detained will be refunded to the sender. As the Home Secretary and I have frequently explained, it would not be in the public interest to give the information asked for in Question No. 22

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: If there is no return of the money paid for a telegram which will not be transmitted, is it not obtaining money under false pretences; and, further, how can he say that it is against the public interest to give the figures asked for when the event is already over. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Grand National was run 10 days ago?

Sir K. WOOD: I have no official information about the Grand National

Mr. LOGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these regulations would apply to post-dated cheques?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that £2,825,000 reached Ireland, the greater part of it from this country, for this sweepstake, and does he not see how futile these "Ogpu" regulations are?

Mr. THORNE: Is it no use Members of this House trying to persuade themselves that the Post Office is not entitled to open any letters it thinks proper?

Sir K. WOOD: That is clear.

Sir W. DAVISON: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the delivery of French and other Continental newspapers to British readers has often been delayed recently owing to instructions issued from the Home Office to newsagents that, before distributing any foreign newspapers, they are responsible for the censorship of such papers to ascertain if there is any allusion to a foreign lottery therein and, if so, to black out any paragraph referring to any such lottery; and whether, in view of the inconvenience, expense, and delay thereby caused, these Home Office instructions will be discontinued and newsagents relieved from this task, for which they have no suitable organisation?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Crookshank): No, Sir; and as no such instructions have been issued by the Home Office, the second part of the question does not arise.

Sir W. DAVISON: Then is there no reason for blacking out and for the delay in the delivery of these papers—does my hon. and gallant Friend say that the Home Office have given no orders in the matter?

Captain CROOKSHANK: That is what I have just said.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the hon. and gallant Member say how many "mare's nests" the Home Office has discovered lately?

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOPS ACT, 1934.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that some employers in the distributive trades, consequent upon the fact that they cannot now legally employ young persons beyond a restricted number of hours per week, have discharged numbers of young persons covered by the Shops Act, 1934; and whether he will take steps to put a stop to this practice?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I am not aware of such discharges and shall be glad if the hon. Member will give me particulars.

Mr. DAVIES: Provided I give the right hon. Gentleman information, will he be good enough to see if he can possibly take some action to prevent this brutal and callous treatment of young persons by employers

Mr. STANLEY: I should like to see the information first, before I give any answer to that question.

Viscountess ASTOR: If my right hon. Friend cannot bring in a Bill dealing with unregulated trades, will he bring in a Bill dealing with the regulated trades?

Mr. STANLEY: As my answer was that I have no knowledge of what is contained in the question till I have been given particulars, I cannot answer the Noble Lady's question.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE, DUDLEY.

Mr. JOEL: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will ascertain from the Unemployment Assistance Board whether any complaints and, if so, of what nature and volume have been received with respect to the assessments carried out by the Board's officials at Dudley?

Mr. ALAN TODD: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will suggest to the Unemployment Assistance Board that a special inquiry should be instituted into the working of the board's machinery in the Dudley area?

Mr. STANLEY: I am informed by the board that inquiries have been made and that the complaints at Dudley are not exceptional in kind or in volume. Out of 48 cases that have been heard by the appeal tribunal, the decision of the board's officer has been confirmed in 42 cases.

CORPORATION EMPLOYÉS, DUNDEE.

Mr. THORNE: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour why his Department refuses to refund the balance of the contributions, prior to 1928, paid in error to the Unemployment Insurance Fund by the employes in the baths department of the Dundee Corporation; whether he is aware that they were required to pay contributions until it was decided in 1926 that such employes were not eligible to either contribute or receive benefit; that this information was not circulated by his Department to all local authorities employing such workpeople; that these employes have been paying contributions, with the approval of his inspectors, from the date of their employment under the Dundee Corporation and, in some cases, from the inception of the Act, 1910, to March, 1934, when notice to end the contributions was given; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to why these contributions were not returned in full?

Mr. STANLEY: The regulations under which a refund of contributions paid in error is permitted limit such refund to contributions paid during the preceding six years. There is no trace of any requirement on the corporation to pay contributions prior to 1926, and it has always been the practice of the Department to regard the employment as uninsurable. It would obviously be quite impracticable to notify all employers of every decision regarding insurability. I should perhaps add that the earliest date for which any of these contributions were paid was in November, 1920.

Mr. THORNE: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to know my mind about this matter?

Mr. STANLEY: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. McENTEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of other local authorities the money has been repaid, and why has it not been repaid in the case of the Dundee Corporation

Mr. STANLEY: No doubt it has. Whenever contributions are paid by mistake they are refunded, subject to the limit of six years, and in this case it has been repaid for the six years during which we were entitled to repay it.

Mr. McENTEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no such limit has been imposed in the case of other corporations?

Mr. STANLEY: Not only am I not aware of it, but I am sure it is not a fact.

MIXED OCCUPATIONS (CORPORATION EMPLOYÉS).

Mr. T. SMITH: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that local authorities are called upon to keep returns of the time spent by their employés on such work as tree lopping, verge planting, and cutting, in order that, if the time so spent is in excess of that spent on work of another character, the employés shall be classed as agricultural workers and excluded from unemployment insurance; that while employes of a local authority are engaged in road making or repairing they are classed as insurable, and when this work has been completed and the men are engaged making up or returning the verges of the same roads they are classed as uninsurable; and whether steps will be taken to remove this anomaly and render unnecessary the elaborate records now required?

Mr. STANLEY: I am aware that in certain cases of mixed employments, records of the time spent on different kinds of work are kept in order to determine whether or not the workpeople are insurable. I am not sure that in the present state of the law a more convenient treatment of such cases is practicable, but, without giving any undertaking that a way can be found, I will have the question examined.

BENEFIT,

Mr. BATEY: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of cases where the means test has been applied to applicants in receipt of standard benefit?

Mr. STANLEY: A means test is not applied to applicants for standard benefit.

Mr. BATEY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say last week that it was when an applicant for standard benefit applied for children's benefit?

Mr. STANLEY: I explained fully to the House what the position was, which has existed for 12 years. Applicants for dependants' benefit in the case of children have to prove that the children were wholly or mainly maintained by them.

Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that where children are not wholly or mainly supported by those applying for standard benefit, there is a difficulty in getting children's allowance?

Mr. STANLEY: That has been the law for 13 years, and it was clarified and codified by the Government supported by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. BATEY: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer the question as to how many cases there have been?

Mr. STANLEY: If the hon. Member thinks that that constitutes a means test, he must get up on every platform in the country and say his party has been in favour of it.

Mr. BATEY: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour when the last order was issued regarding persons in receipt of standard benefit having to state the amount of money going into the family income; and whether the order can be issued to Members of this House?

Mr. STANLEY: The decisions upon claims for benefit are given by independent statutory authorities. I have no power to issue orders with regard to those decisions, and my only duty is to see that the authorities are given the information they require. In the course of the Debate on 3rd April, I gave the history of the official forms designed for this purpose. I assume the hon. Member has in mind the form U.I. 534A, issued in July, 1934, of which I am sending him a copy. The questions on page 4 of this form relate to applications for dependants' benefit in respect of dependent children.

SPECIAL AREAS (CAMBORNE AND REDRUTH).

Mr. PALING: 31.
(for Mr. DAVID GRENFELL) asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the representations submitted with respect to scheduling the Camborne-Redruth rural and urban districts as a distressed area; and whether he is prepared to accede to this request?

Mr. STANLEY: The areas to which the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act applies are scheduled to the Act itself, and I have no power to add to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGED WORKERS (WAGES).

Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any information relating to the practice of certain employers who take into consideration the statutory pension of 10s. a week when assessing wages of their employés between the ages of 65 and 70; and whether he will make a statement on the matter?

Mr. STANLEY: I am not in possession of information as to the extent to which statutory pensions are taken into consideration by individual employers and workpeople in the assessment of rates of wages, and I am not aware of any collective agreements between organisations of employers and workpeople providing for the payment of reduced rates of wages to workpeople in receipt of pensions.

Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that several local authorities have done this, particularly those dominated by Tories?

Mr. STANLEY: I have information only of cases where it is done by collective agreements between the parties, but, in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, I know of no case where that has been done.

Mr. PALING: Is there anything to prevent individual employers or local authorities from doing it?

Mr. STANLEY: There is nothing to prevent employers and employed, by agreement, fixing any rates of wages.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a classical case where an arbitrator in a dispute took into account social services in assessing rates of wages?

Mr. STANLEY: I am afraid my acquaintance with the classics is limited.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE UNIONS (PENSION SCHEMES).

Mr. K. LINDSAY: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give
any information as to the number of trade unions with pension schemes for their members?

Mr. STANLEY: As far as can be ascertained from the latest returns furnished by registered trade unions, 106 of these unions are operating pension schemes for members. Comprehensive information is not available as regards unregistered unions, but it is understood that only a. small proportion of these unions have such schemes in operation.

Mr. LINDSAY: In view of the many anomalies and difficulties in the way of obtaining information and also in view of the fact that there is going to be a lot more people of old age about during the next 30 years, will my right hon. Friend consider the views of employers and employés' organisations, as he is consulting them on the question of hours, on this question also?

Mr. STANLEY: I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

BARLINNIE PRISON, GLASGOW.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes to take any action as a result of the report into the administration and discipline of Barlinnie Prison, Glasgow?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for the length of this reply. Yes, Sir; I have decided that the governor of Barlinnie Prison should be transferred to the governorship of Greenock Prison, and that the governor of Greenock Prison should be promoted to the Governorship of Barlinnie Prison. The transfer will be carried out on the 10th instant. Steps are being taken to ensure that in future the Prisons Department for Scotland is kept in closer touch with the internal administration and discipline of prisons by means of a better system of inspection and arrangements for this purpose are being made. The observations in the report regarding the association of revoked Borstal licence holders with juvenile adult prisoners will be the subject of consultation between the Prisons Department and the new governor, and specific proposals will then
be submitted to me for approval. As regards the supervision period of one year which revoked Borstal licenceholders are liable to undergo, this is a matter which depends upon statute, but the question is being examined in consultation with other Departments concerned.
The whole question of "privileges" in Scottish prisons is being reviewed in consultation with prison governors, in order to place the matter on a better footing than it is at present and, at the same time, to ensure greater uniformity throughout the various prisons. I may add that First Class Warder Bates, whose conduct is commended in the report, has been promoted to be head warder at Edinburgh Prison.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the staff of Barlinnie 'Prison have unanimously expressed their entire confidence in the governor, and will he take this new fact into consideration?

Sir G. COLLINS: I have had these representations made to me and have given them due consideration, but, in view of the report and the governor's subsequent comment on the report, my duty has been made quite clear and my decision is irrevocable.

Mr. MAXTON: While the whole question of privileges in Scottish prisons is being discussed, are the present privileges being maintained?

Sir G. COLLINS: I cannot give a definite assurance that the present privileges are being maintained. That is a matter for the internal discipline of each prison by the governor. The whole position is being reviewed in the light of the events which took place in Barlinnie Prison.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries to see whether the privileges are being maintained at Barlinnie Prison while the matter is being considered?

Sir G. COLLINS: I will make inquiries, but I cannot give any undertaking that privileges will not be restricted. These are matters for the internal discipline by each governor in each prison, and I am not prepared at the moment to tighten or to loosen them.

Mr. MAXTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that hs is wrong, and that the privileges have to be approved by his own Department and not by the individual prison governors?

Sir G. COLLINS: That is where, I think, I differ from the hon. Gentleman. These privileges have in the past been matters of internal discipline, but I am looking into the whole question, and I will communicate to the hon. Gentleman any decision that I reach.

MILK PRICES (INSTITUTIONS).

Mr. Burnett: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to make a statement as to the conclusions of the committee of investigation for Scotland regarding the price of milk to institutions which was the subject of a report of the Consumers' Committee?

Sir G. COLLINS: I have received the committee's report and, with my hon. Friend's permission, will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The report is under consideration.

Following is the statement:

The committee find that to the extent that local authorities and voluntary hospitals within the area of the Scottish milk scheme are now required to pay substantially more for their supplies of milk than they paid before the inauguration of the scheme, the price scale determined by the board, and their action in giving effect to it, may be regarded as contrary to the interests of the said local authorities and voluntary hospitals. With respect to the question whether the determination of the board in this matter was not in the public interest, the committee find themselves unable to give an unqualified answer. The committee see no justification for the argument that because prior to the scheme a consumer was in a position, owing to the conditions then prevailing, of securing milk at less than economic rates, that fact should be regarded as a reason for fixing lower prices now that the scheme is in operation. The committee also have no hesitation in deciding that the beneficent nature of the work carried out by the local authorities and the voluntary hospitals does not in itself justify a claim to obtain their supplies of milk under the scheme at less than a reasonable price.
On the other hand, the committee point out that it would be an unfortunate sequel to the scheme if the consumption of Grade A (T.T.) milk were abandoned to any extent in hospitals or in rate-. supported institutions in favour of ordinary milk, and equally unfortunate if the consumption of milk, of whatever grade, were to be reduced. This consideration, coupled with the facts that the institutions are large consumers and do not purchase for trading purposes or for sale at a profit, that there is little expense involved in handling or distribution, and that there is no risk of any bad debts being made by the sellers, suggests to the committee that there is a case for exceptional treatment of these institutions in certain directions. In so far as these institutions have not received such treatment owing to the action of the board, such action may be said to be not in the public interest.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERTHYR TYDVIL (INQUIRY).

Mr. STEPHEN DAVIES: 40.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to state the object and scope of, as well as the names of the persons who are to conduct, the proposed inquiry into the conditions obtaining in the county borough of Merthyr Tydvil; and whether, in view of the fact that his Department is already in full possession of all the necessary information, he will reverse his decision and immediately apply the appropriate measures to relieve that exceptionally distressed area?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The object and scope of the inquiry is to consider the status of Merthyr Tydvil as a county borough and what other arrangements, if any, should be made for its local government. My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to announce the names of the commissioners, but hopes to do so shortly. An inquiry on the lines proposed is necessary for investigating satisfactorily the subject to be considered about which my right hon. Friend's Department is not already in possession of all the necessary information.

Viscountess ASTOR: In view of the number of women and children in South Wales with whom the commission will have to deal, will not the Minister consider putting a woman on the commission?

Oral Answers to Questions — WATER SUPPLIES.

Mr. CLEARY: 41.
asked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken to safeguard the country against the dangers of another possible drought?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The average total rainfall for the country as a whole for the six months ended 31st March last, the critical months for the replenishment of water supplies, was above the normal, and urban water undertakers generally are in a good position. Should the necessity arise, powers are available to them to obtain additional water supplies with despatch under the Water Supplies (Exceptional Shortage Orders) Act, 1934, which remains in force until the end of the present year. The primary need in the rural areas is for permanent supplies. Good progress is being made under the Act of last year and the total capital cost of schemes for which State grants have been provisionally allocated is now £3,200,000 for schemes in 1,100 parishes.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNTY BOROUGHS.

Mr. S. DAVIES: 42 and 43.
asked the Minister of Health (1) whether any and, if so, what county boroughs have been deprived of their charters since the year 1900; and on what grounds in each case?
(2) whether he will give particulars of the urban authorities which have been granted their charter of incorporation as county boroughs since the year 1900, giving their population at the date of incorporation?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Since 1900, 19 county boroughs have been created and no county borough has been deprived of its status. In one case there has been an amalgamation of one county borough with another. County boroughs are not constituted by charter. I am sending the hon. Member a statement giving the detailed information he desires. Under die Local Government (County Boroughs and Adjustments) Act, 1926, a borough must have a minimum population of 75,000 before application can be made for county borough status.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIGRATION (CANADA).

Brigadier-General NATION: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how many migrants from the United Kingdom have entered Canada during the last 10 years?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The number of migrants from the United Kingdom entering Canada during the latest 10 years for which figures are available, that is, the 10 years ended 31st March, 1934, was 353,855.

Brigadier-General NATION: In view of the fact that during the same period something like 500,000 foreigners and 200,000 Americans entered Canada, does not the hon. Gentleman think the time has come when British migration should be further encouraged

Mr. MacDONALD: That is a matter primarily for the Canadian Government. We are ready to do our part as soon as conditions are favourable.

Mr. LUNN: How many British migrants have been deported from Canada during the past four years?

Mr. MacDONALD: I shall require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — STRESA CONFERENCE (BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES).

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state what British Ministers will attend the conference at Stresa?
In putting this question may I express, what I am sure is the general feeling in the House, sympathy with the Lord Privy Seal and wish him a speedy recovery.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The British representatives will be my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and myself.
I need hardly tell the House how heartily my colleauges and I associate ourselves with the right hon. Gentleman and how much we regret that the Lord Privy Seal cannot also be at Stresa as one of the representatives of His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — RIBBON DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister what further period will elapse before the promised Bill is presented to preserve the country side against destruction by ribbon-building?

The PRIME MINISTER: A Bill has already been prepared and is under consideration by His Majesty's Government. The Government, however, is not in a position to introduce the Bill until it can put before the House proposals which will effectively deal with the problem with due regard to the many interests concerned.

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: In the preparation of this Bill, will the Prime Minister bear in mind the extreme urgency of the matter and the necessity of introducing some provision to prevent the erection of buildings directly upon arterial roads?

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Does the reply mean that the Bill will not be introduced this Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, no. We are preparing it as fast as we can in view of the tremendously complicated problems and details which are involved.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the Bill include provision for compensating landlords?

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that this matter was put before the Minister of Health in 1918?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMS MANUFACTURE (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Miss RATHBONE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that it has now been established that written records exist of the evidence of a number of important witnesses before the 1918 McKinnon Wood inquiry, and in view of the important bearing of that evidence on the work of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Private Manufacture of Arms, he will cause further search to be made for the complete evidence and will cause it to be published?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have had careful inquiry made. No verbatim record appears to have been made of the evidence taken by this committee. Copies have been found, however, of certain of the minutes of the committee, and these will be made available to the Royal Commission if they wish it.

Mr. THORNE: Will it be possible for Members of the House to have copies of these minutes? I think I was a member of the inquiry, and I am unable to find them.

Miss RATHBONE: Will the Prime Minister consider making the minutes available to the general public, as copious extracts have been published in a pamphlet by Dr. Gilbert Slater, and the public would wish to know the remainder of the evidence?

The PRIME MINISTER: In that case the evidence is available.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIES AND DEPENDENCIES (EDUCATIONAL REFORMS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 48.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the practicability of extending to other Mediterranean colonies and dependencies the far-reaching educational reforms at present being carried through in Cyprus; and whether he will ask the governors and others to report to him on this question?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): It is not necessary for me to consider extending the Cyprus reforms to Malta for the reason that the position already achieved in Malta is considerably in advance of that reached in Cyprus. In 1932, as the right hon. Member will recollect, the important decision was taken that English should be the only language to be taught in the elementary schools in addition to the Maltese vernacular. In Gibraltar the schools are grant-aided but not directly administered by Government. English is taught in all the schools including the elementary schools.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman extend his survey to Gibraltar and Palestine?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is a separate matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINING INDUSTRY ACT.

Mr. T. SMITH: 49.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Court of Appeal with regard to the case of the Consett Iron Company, Limited, v. Clavering; and, if so, whether he contemplates taking any action to amend the Mining Industry Act, 1926?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes." With
regard to the second part, all I can say at the moment is that the position is being carefully considered.

Mr. SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any representations have been made to him on this subject?

Mr. BROWN: Yes.

Mr. DICKIE: Having regard to the fact that the Act of 1926 was expressly passed for the purpose of dealing with cases of this kind, and that this extraordinary decision completely nullifies that Act, can we have an assurance that there will be no avoidable delay in introducing amending legislation?

Mr. BROWN: I have already said that the matter is being carefully considered. More than that I cannot say now.

Mr. SMITH: Are we to take it that in the near future the hon. Gentleman intends to make a full statement on the matter?

Mr. BROWN: As soon as I am able to do so.

Mr. DICKIE: May we take it that some such legislation will be introduced during this Session?

Mr. BROWN: I have said that I cannot add anything to the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, ELLESMERE).

Major LEIGHTON: 50.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether any decision has been come to with regard to the building of a new school at Ellesmere, Shropshire; and, if not, what is the present situation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotharn): The statutory period for the publication of notice of the proposal in question has only just expired, and no decision upon it has yet been reached. It may be desirable to hold a public inquiry before coming to a decision.

Major LEIGHTON: May I ask whether, in coming to a decision, the Minister will bear in mind that the inhabitants are very anxious to have some public inquiry?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (COLONELDAWNAY).

Mr. WILMOT: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Colonel Dawnay, who recently resigned from the staff of the British Broadcasting Corporation to return to duty in the Army, has now again left the Army to return to the British Broadcasting Corporation; and whether it is in accordance with the usual practice for an officer thus to alternate between service in the Army and other employment?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): Colonel Dawnay has been on half-pay since 1st August, 1933, and is not being re-employed until 19th October, when he assumes command of the Irish Guards Regiment and Regimental District.

Mr. WILMOT: While thanking the hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he is aware that after the interview given to the Press by this officer announcing that he was rejoining the Army and the fact that he was still signing letters on behalf of the British Broadcasting Corporation naturally caused some misapprehension?

Mr. HACKING: There is no reason why he should not sign letters for the British Broadcasting Corporation. He has not yet returned to duty with the Army.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

BUILT-UP AREAS (SPEED LIMIT).

Major DESPENCER-ROBERTSON: 52.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the cases of motorists who have exceeded the speed-limit and have not been fined nor had their licences endorsed, while other motorists in a different county have been fined and had their licences endorsed; and whether he can take steps to ensure that all such cases shall be dealt with in a uniform manner?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I do not know to what particular cases my hon. Friend refers. If a defendant is convicted of exceeding a speed limit, the Court is required, in the absence of special reason to the contrary, to order
particulars of the conviction to be endorsed on the offender's driving licence, and attention was drawn to this requirement in a. Home Office circular which was issued to courts of summary jurisdiction on 28th September last. The question what fine, if any, should be imposed, within the statutory maximum, is for the court to decide in its discretion according to the circumstances of the individual case, and my right hon. Friend has no authority to give directions to the courts as to the manner in which this discretion should be exercised.

Major DESPENCER-ROBERTSON: Is the hon. Member aware that at Llandudno the other day several motorists who had undoubtedly exceeded the 30miles per hour limit were let off by the magistrates without an endorsement, and does he not think that that constitutes a real grievance to those motorists who have had their licences endorsed?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Endorsement only follows upon conviction. If there is no conviction, nothing happens.

Mr. GROVES: 58.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a police trap was operating on the Buck-burst Hill portion of the new Epping road on Wednesday, 20th March, at 9 p.m.; that the police were using an ordinary commercial van advertising Sandon flannel trousers, and that the police car preceded an ordinary motorist for one mile at 28 miles per hour then slowed to 25 miles per hour, and as the motorist attempted to pass the police car it accelerated to 30 miles per hour, thus causing the motorist to exceed the speed limit in order to safely pass; and whether he will ensure the stopping of such practices and the non-prosecution of the motorist in question, Mr. A. Offley, of Stratford?

Captain CROOKSHANK: My right hon. Friend is informed that proceedings against Mr. Offley have been started, and while the case is pending he cannot, of course, interfere, nor would it be proper for him to make any comment on the statements made in the question, though he must not be taken as accepting their accuracy.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether any instructions are given to police cars on the subject of overtaking?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I cannot deal with anything in this question. Generally speaking, very definite instructions have been issued to the Metropolitan mobile patrols that they must not accelerate when being overtaken. Among other reasons, it is against the Highway Code.

Lieut.-Commander BOWER: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the police van in question received any fee for the free advertisement given to this particular brand of flannel trousers?

ACCIDENT-PRONENESS.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 65.
asked the Minister of Transport whether it is his intention to take any steps to prevent accident-prone motorists from using the roads; and whether such action will involve legislation?

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The Medical Research Council have recently conferred with representatives of the insurance interests as to the possibility of obtaining data as to the existence of accident proneness among drivers of motor vehicles. Until their investigations have made progress, it would be premature to forecast the result.

BY-PASS ROADS.

Sir G. FOX: 66.
asked the Minister of Transport what has been the

The following speed limits of less than 30 miles per hour in force:


Name of Authority.
Nature and location of limit.
Date of Order.


Southampton County Borough Council
15 miles per hour on all roads in the Southern Railway's Southampton Docks estate. (April, 1932.)
8th April, 1932.


Worcester County Council
4 miles per hour on a short stretch of road through the Abbey Gateway, Malvern. (November, 1932)
2nd November, 1932.


Isle of Ely County Council
10 miles per hour for heavy vehicles on a short stretch of raod in Wisbech. (March, 1934.)
12th March, 1934.


Devon County Council
10 miles per hour on a portion of the Seaton— Beer Road between Beer Hill and a point near Seaton. (May, 1934.)
15th May, 1934.


Walsall County Borough Council.
12 miles per hour on a portion of Green Lane. (February, 1935.)
8th February, 1935.


Hertfordshire County Council.
15 miles per hour on a portion of the St. Albans—Dunstable Road Markyate street. (March, 1935.)
18th March, 1935



Orders Proposed to be sanctioned



Devon County Council.
Appledore Quay, Appledore, 10 miles per hour.



Yorks (E.R.) County Council.
 Foreshore Road, Filey, 10 miles per hour during July August and September.

approximate mileage of new by-pass roads constructed in Great Britain and the mileage of these along which ribbon development has already taken place?

Captain A HUDSON: The mileage of by-pass roads constructed in Great Britain with assistance from the Road Fund in recent years is approximately 200 miles. Without calling for special surveys by the several highway authorities concerned, my hon. Friend cannot say what proportion of the mileage has been developed.

Sir G. FOX: Does it not seem that definite information is required, in view of a proposed Bill to deal with ribbon development?

Captain A. HUDSON: I will convey the question to my hon. Friend.

LOCAL SPEED LIMITS.

Sir G. FOX: 67.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can give the names of those places for which a speed limit lower than 30 miles per hour has been sanctioned, together with the speed limit in each case?

Captain A. HUDSON: As the answer is detailed, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Oral Answers to Questions — HERR JAKOB (DISAPPEARANCE).

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 54.
asked the Home Secretary whether the inquiries now being carried on by the Metropolitan Police in connection with the disappearance of Herr Jakob have disclosed the presence in this country of any counter-refugee organisation engaged in undesirable activities; and, in this case, whether any special steps are being taken by the Home Office to have any of the persons concerned deported?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Inquiries are still proceeding, and as my hon. Friend was informed on Wednesday last, it would be undesirable to make any statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SEAMEN (BRITISH NATURALISATION).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 56.
asked the Home Secretary whether there has been any increased demand for naturalisation from foreign seamen borne in British ships following the recommendation of the Shipping Subsidy Committee that British seamen should be given preference in employment; and what policy it is proposed to adopt with regard to such applications?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The number of applications and of preliminary inquiries received by the Home Office in the first three months of this year indicates that there is an increased demand for naturalisation by seamen. In dealing with such applications my right hon. Friend's policy will be the same as it has been in the past. Each case is considered on its merits, and the question whether naturalisation shall ibe granted or refused to those having the statutory qualifications depends on whether my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the applicant is a suitable person to become a British subject.

Mr. LOGAN: May we take it that, in view of the shipping position, particular attention will be paid to these applications for naturalisation?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Every attention is given to all applications, as I have just said.

Mr. LOGAN: I am not asking that. I am asking whether, having regard to the particular subterfuges now being adopted, particular attention will be paid to all these cases?

Oral Answers to Questions — ACCIDENT, GODSTONE.

Mr. THORNE: 57.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received any report from the coroner in connection with the death of a man who was buried by 1,500 tons of sand at Taylor's Hill sand-pit, Godstone; and whether there was any breach of the regulations which governs that, when men are working at the sand-pit face, the face of the pit should not exceed 15 feet in height?

Mr. E BROWN: I have been asked to reply. The accident was investigated, and the coroner's inquest was attended by one of His Majesty's inspectors of quarries. The quarry face was sloped back at an angle of 45 degrees to a vertical height of about 80 feet and the deceased man was working on the face, when, without warning, about 1,500 tons of sand slid down and overwhelmed him. There is no rule limiting the height of a quarry face to 15 feet, and the Statutory Rules relating to clearing back the overburden and the manner of working the face were fully complied with. The jury returned a verdict of accidental death and attached no blame to anyone.

Mr. THORNE: I understood this was a sand-pit and not a quarry?

Mr. BROWN: It is a quarry for the purpose of definition.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (DEATHS, LONDON).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 59.
asked the Home Secretary whether he knows yet why Dr. Dora Fabian committed suicide?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The question how this lady came by her death is a matter for determination at the inquest, and I cannot anticipate what the verdict will be.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the hon. and gallant Member assure the House that the lady in question was not threatened by the police with deportation?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind that the friends of this lady who were in communication with her three or four days before said that she was in extraordinarily good spirits and full of interest in her work?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can I have an answer to my question? Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman assure us that the lady was not threatened with deportation?

Captain CROOKSHANK: That point does not arise out of this question. I have answered what I was asked and I must have notice if further details are required.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the hon and gallant Gentleman investigate the aspect of the matter put to him by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel: Wedgwood) before the inquest takes place?

Oral Answers to Questions — LONG-DISTANCE FLIGHT (LETTERS).

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that certain letters of greeting carried from Australia to England by Mr. H. L. Brooke have been seized by the Customs authorities; and whether he will state, having regard to the record-breaking achievement of this airman, on what grounds this action was taken?

Mr. COOPER: I am aware of the facts stated in the first part of the question; the action taken was in accordance with the law, which requires a Customs officer to hand over to the postal authorities any postal packets on board an inward-bound aircraft which are not so handed over by the pilot himself. I would add that the letters have been returned to Mr. Brooke by the postal authorities.

Captain A. EVANS: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, having regard to all the circumstances of this flight, it was unnecessary for an official of the Customs to insist upon the exact letter of the law in such a case?

Mr. COOPER: I entirely agree.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Brigadier-General NATION: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connection with the decrease which has been taking place in the number of legitimate theatres throughout the country during recent years and the increase in the number of cinemas, he can provide any figures to show to what
extent receipts from Entertainments Duty levied on these theatres have decreased during this period and to what extent they have increased in respect of cinematograph entertainments; and whether he will consider the desirability of adjusting the Entertainments Duty so as to enable the living theatre to compete with these new circumstances?

Mr. COOPER: With regard to the first part of the question, I regret that separate particulars of the receipts of Entertainments Duty from different classes of entertainments are not available, because in the case of duty paid by the purchase of stamps or stamped tickets there is no information as to the class of entertainment for which the stamps or tickets may be used; with regard to the second part of the question, my hon. and gallant Friend will not expect me to anticipate the Budget statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

CHACO COMMITTEE.

Mr. G. HALL: 7.
(for Sir WILLIAM JENKINS) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps, if any, are being taken by the British Government to secure an early meeting of the committee which had been established to advise on the Gran-Chaco dispute?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by suggesting a further meeting of the League Chaco Committee, pending the outcome of the efforts to obtain a settlement which are now being made, with the approval of this Committee, by certain South American Governments.

ABYSSINIA.

Mr. G. HALL: 8.
(for Sir W. JENKINS) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will take steps to ask the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to summon a special meeting of the Council of the League as early as possible to deal with the situation in Abyssinia?

Sir J. SIMON: Although I have not yet received its text, I understand from reports in the Press that the Ethiopian Government have, within the last few days, addressed a further communication
to the League of Nations requesting that their differences with Italy be considered at the special session of the Council to be held this month, and that this request is receiving consideration.

PREPARED HONEY.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE (for Mr. TURTON): 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that prepared confections containing little or no floral nectar obtained by bees are being labelled and sold as honey; and whether he will take steps to limit the use of the label honey to honey of bee origin?

Captain A. HUDSON: I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on this subject to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) on 1st April, of which I am sending him a copy.

SUNBURY ON THAMES URBANDISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.

Order [4th February] that the Bill be committed read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That, in the case of the Bournemouth 'Corporation [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
2. "That, in the case of the Boston Corporation [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
3. "That, in the case of the Southern Railway Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Considered in Committee[EIGHTEENTH DAY—Progress, 5th April.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERTin the Chair.]

CLAUSE 251.—(Power by Order in Council to transfer certain powers of Secretary of State.)

Motion made, and Question proposed [5th April], "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Question again proposed.

3.38 p.m.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: At the moment when the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress on Friday last, we were discussing whether Clause 251 should stand part of the Bill. Immediately before I spoke my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) had made a plea to the Government that, although the Clause formed part of a previous Act, it should be withdrawn by the Government from the Bill. I venture to endorse that plea. It is not very often that the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings and myself find ourselves in agreement. On this occasion I have had the advantage of going into the matter during the week-end and I find myself in hearty agreement with him. I have not been able to find in which Act this Clause appeared before; as far as I can see from the Government of India Act, 1919, there is a Section—Section 33—relating to the relaxation of control by the Secretary of State. I should be pleased if my right hon. Friend could tell me whether that is the precedent for the Clause in the Bill.
The Clause is of very great importance. We have had some discussion on the evidence which was before us that civil servants in India attach very great importance indeed to the various safeguards contained in this Chapter. The whole of the safeguards become almost valueless if the Clause stands as it is. It is true that the Clause governs all the other Clauses in this part of the Bill, but the Clause itself is governed by Clause 286, which applies the affirmative resolution procedure and makes it not quite so easy for a Secretary of State to surrender his power. Even so, I can see no reason
why the Secretary of State should be authorised to surrender his powers and give up the safeguards to which such great importance is attached. It seems to me that, if that is done, it should be done by passing an Act of Parliament which could be debated in the ordinary way. I urge the Secretary of State to consider deleting this Clause. We have had before us, with regard to these safeguards, very important evidence from those who are serving in India at the present time.
That evidence has been described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), in a wealth of mixed metaphors, as a mare's nest which has dissolved into thin air and then been blown sky high. That is certainly a remarkable performance, but neither the words of the Secretary of State nor of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook can diminish the importance of this evidence, which to us is not diminished in importance by the fact that the Secretary of State has not been able to doctor it. That document is of very great importance, and it is very relevant to this Clause. The opinion of the Bengal Civil Service must be considered as of great importance when we are discussing Clause 251 of the Bill, and I venture to hope that, before we leave the discussion of this part of the Bill, both the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook will see fit to withdraw the expressions which they have used about the document which we discussed last Friday. It has been described as a rejected draft and as a mare's nest but everyone knows that it is neither. Far from being a rejected draft, it was an appreciation of the situation circulated as a basis on which a memorial could be drawn up, and on that basis it had the agreement of an overwhelming majority of those to whom it was sent.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I hope my Noble Friend will forgive me for interrupting him, but may I ask him how that agreement was expressed?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: The document was circulated to the members of the association, with the intimation that it would be considered as the basis of a. memorial couched in proper official language. As my right hon. Friend
knows, an appreciation of the situation is not couched in the same kind of language that is used in an official memorial to the Government. It was circulated is an appreciation of the situation on which a memorial might be based if agreement were found. The members of the association to whom it was circulated were asked to write saying if they disagreed, and it was intimated that if they did not write their agreement would be assumed.[Laughter.]It is quite; easy to laugh. If you circulate a document broadcast to irresponsible people, of course agreement obtained in that way would be null and void, but this document was not circulated broadcast—

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Was it the ease that everyone who did not take the trouble to reply, but put it in the wastepaper basket, as we have to do with many communications that we receive, was deemed to agree?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I am reluctant to find myself in disagreement with my right hon. Friend, but this is not quite like most of such documents which reach Members of Parliament. The Secretary of State referred to the document as having been drawn up by two or three individuals and he referred to them as if they were irresponsible. They were five individuals, the members of the executive committee of the association. It would be just as true to refer to this Bill as having been drafted by two or three individuals. The document was drawn up by the executive committee of the association, and; far from being broadcast all over the country, it was distributed to members of the association by their executive committee. A document presented in that way is not a matter to be laughed off. I venture to hope that the Secretary of State will resile from the position that he took up on Friday last, for it is not a tenable position. He referred to the grave responsibility which my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was assuming in bringing this document forward; but are we not to bring forward any document of which he does not approve? There are other grave responsibilities. Passing a Bill through Parliament on false pretences is also a very grave responsibility indeed.

3.46 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: It would, I suppose, be out of order to refer to what was said last Friday on the Motion to report Progress—

The CHAIRMAN: have been looking back at this Chapter of the Bill to see exactly what the Clause does, but the Noble Lord of course knows quite well that, on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," he cannot deal with any matters which go outside this particular Clause.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Since the Clause deals with the question of appointments, and enables the Secretary of State to transfer the reserved appointments to any Indian body that he may choose, subject to any reaction between this Clause. and Clause 286; since the persons who are the subject of these appointments are now manifesting very great alarm and apprehension at the procedure which is proposed; and since undoubtedly the retention of these appointments in the hands of the Secretary of State is regarded as a matter of very great. importance, and as almost the last security which can exist, may I put it to you, Sir Dennis, as a point of Order, that the opinion of these people and their method of expressing it is entirely relevant to the topic now under discussion?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): Before you deal with that point of Order, may I point out to you that this Clause does not deal with existing rights, but deals with future entrants, about whom, so far as I can remember, nothing was said in the memorial of the Association? It is, of. course, entirely for you to decide whether the discussion should go back to the discussion of last Friday, but, if you decide that it should, nobody will be better-pleased than myself.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the point is perfectly clear. The right hon. Gentlemen who have referred to it will see what comes within the discussion and what does not. Clause 251 provides for the making of the transfer, to such authority as may be specified, of the powers conferred by this Chapter on the Secretary of State with respect to the making of appointments. As the Secretary of State has just said, the Clause has
no application at all to any existing members of the Civil Service, but only applies to appointments which may be made in the future, and, therefore, I think that the discussion on the Clause must be confined strictly to those matters.

Earl WINTERTON: I have already indicated that I was not going to follow my Noble Friend in his remarks, and I shall confine myself entirely to the Clause itself. On the whole, I agree with the conclusion reached by my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), and I hope that the Clause will not be proceeded with. It is necessary to make clear—and this was the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) referred —that the Noble Lady the Member for Perth (Duchess of Atholl) is not correct in saying that, under this Clause, the matter must be dealt with solely by an Order-in-Council. That is not so, because it is governed by Clause 286, as my hon. Friend pointed out, and the Order-in-Council would have to be submitted to an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Under the existing statute the Secretary of State can, I believe, make a transfer of Services roughly analogous to what is proposed in this Bill without having to obtain an affirmative resolution, but the matter is not really of very great importance. The system which has been adopted in this Bill of proceeding to make amendments by Orders-in-Council is undoubtedly a convenient one from one point of view.
During the long years that I was Under-Secretary of State for India and representing the India Office in this House, it was necessary to bring in two or three Bills amending the Government of India Act, because it was only possible to achieve what was desired by an actual amendment of the Act. That meant a very tortuous system of legislation by reference. I remember being attacked by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who complained that I was constantly bringing in Bills that referred to half a dozen other former Acts which were incorporated in the Government of India Act, 1919. I think that from the point of view of legislative, and indeed administrative convenience it is
a good thing to try and avoid that sort of thing as far as possible by giving the power to the Secretary of State, subject to the approval of both Houses, to d(certain things by Orders-in-Council. A the same time, I do not think that that power should be extended too far.
In this Bill we have either already agreed to give, or it is proposed that we should give quite as much latitude under this particular heading as is desirable. and for these reasons I am not wholly it favour of the Clause. But I should like to put a stronger point. The Service: which are affected by this Clause are the very bone and fibre of the India administration, and it is necessary to point out—and here, in fact, there is no difference of opinion between those who may be called the dissident Conservatives and those who are supporting the Bill—because it is constantly ignored by uninformed persons outside this House, that these Services are not composed purely of European British subjects, and that there is a very large number of Indians in them, and an increasing number. It is necessary from the point of view of the Indians themselves in the services to give legitimate protection to their position and status. I say that because there was a speech on Friday on another occasion in which it seemed to be suggested that there was an analogy between the British Civil Service and the Indian Civil Service. That is utterly false; there is no sort of connection. It should be understood in all quarters that at the basis of this Bill is the understanding that these particular Services have a peculiar and particular status in it. It is very necessary that we should do nothing to give the impression, however misplaced that impression might be, that the safeguards and status of this Service, as laid down in the Bill, are purely of a transitory nature. It is very necessary that we should not give that impression. I do not want to be misunderstood, but I wish to say without prejudice to what this House might do by means of legislation at some future date, that I do not think that the impression, however misguided it might be, could be given that they are transitory provisions.
Again, I apologise to the Committee for making a personal reference. The thing which disturbed me at the time of the production of the original White
Paper very much indeed was the provision relating to the five years' period in regard to the Civil Service. I am giving away no secret when I say that others on hat Committee were seriously disturbed by that condition. We, in our report, hoped that these particular conditions would be altered. Therefore, for all here reasons, I hope that consideration will be given to the withdrawal of the Clause, and that if it is sought at any time by a subsequent Government, it should be sought by a different method.

3.56 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I will not be tempted alter your Ruling, Sir Dennis Herbert, into following some of the considerations which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington), but let me, therefore, in a sentence, say that the telegrams which I have received over the week-end from India entirely confirm the statement which I made to the Committee last Friday. This Clause is really a machinery Clause. Let us not, therefore, read into it more than it actually contains. Behind it there is a good deal of history. There has been a good deal of discussion, and from the discussion certain conclusions have definitely emerged. The first is that it is very important, both from the Indian and from the British point of view, to keep the Services contented and efficient during the period—which is bound to be a critical period—in which the reforms are being brought into operation. The second conclusion that emerged from our discussion was the great interest that the Indians of all schools of thought, in the Provinces not less than at the Centre, perhaps in the Provinces more than at the Centre, take in the future relations of the Services with the responsible Governments.
Most Indians take the view that in the course of time the position of the Services in India will conform more and more to the position of the Services in Great Britain. That may be so or it may not be so; no one can say what is to be the future development of the Services in India. There is, however, no doubt about the fact that the Indians take a very close interest in this question, and we, on that account, would be unwise to take any unnecessary action that might antagonise the very reasonable view of the politically-minded Indian who thinks that in the future, at some date unnamed,
there must be changes of some kind. With those conclusions in their mind, the Joint Select Committee came to the view, first of all, that, so far as existing civil servants are concerned, all their existing rights must be continued and safeguarded. Without that safeguard, the existing civil servants, on whom so much in the future is bound to depend, would be alarmed as to their conditions of service and would be less likely on that account to give efficient services to the Government, whether it be in the Provinces or whether it be at the Centre.
So far as the future is concerned, as distinct from existing civil servants, therefore, the Joint Select Committee took the view that at some time there must certainly be an inquiry into the future conditions of the Services, when sufficient data has been obtained after the initiation of responsible government, to show whether or not the changes are needed. The Committee very explicitly stated that when sufficient data had been obtained, and, in any case, not before five years, an inquiry of this kind should take place. I think it is necessary to emphasise the need for this inquiry, for whatever changes we may or may not make about the machinery of this Clause, I am sure it is essential, and we should all admit the fact, that when this data has been obtained, then such an inquiry should take place. This Clause is based upon those recommendations, namely, that so far as existing members of the Services are concerned, no alteration in their conditions—

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend says "existing members of the Services." Does he include all who may enter before the new constitution comes into force? When he speaks of "future members," does he mean those entering afterwards?

Sir S. HOARE: It is even more extended than my right hon. Friend suggests. It is before the new order comes into effect; that is to say, all civil servants now in the Service or entering the Service until the order setting out the change is actually made. Then there is to be a complete Parliamentary safeguard, namely, no alteration of any kind in their conditions of service without an amending Act. As to entrants after the new order, the Joint Select Committee made the recommendation set out at the
end of paragraph 298, on page 184, of the report:
The Constitution Act should in our view, make provision for enabling the present arrangements for recruitment and control of the Indian Civil Service and Indian Police to be varied without an amending Act; probably procedure by Order in Council, the draft of which had been approved by both Houses of Parliament, would be most convenient.
That is the proposal set out in Clause 251. The Committee has got to consider whether that proposal is the best in the circumstances. It has been suggested in the course of this debate that a change on the lines of the Amendment would be regarded by the Services as in their interest. I am not quite sure whether that is so. My impression goes to show that existing members of the Services regard the form of this Clause, in which differentiation is made between them and future entrants, as a distinct safeguard. They think it is less likely that they would be swept into some future change if their treatment is kept distinct from future entrants. That, so far as I can judge, is the opinion of existing members of the Civil Service and existing members of the police. In any case, I would remind the Committee that there has to be Parliamentary sanction. Moreover, in a, question of this kind, which is bound to cover a great many details, supposing that changes are recommended in this inquiry, procedure even by Order in Council would be by no means a perfunctory procedure.
Therefore, between procedure by Order in Council and procedure by an amending Act, I do not myself believe there is great advantage one way or the other from the point of view of Parliamentary discussion. If, however, it is the general view in the Committee that one method is better than another, so far as I, myself, am concerned, I have no very strong feeling upon one side or the other. It is a case of machinery. It is a case of method. In either case there is Parliamentary sanction. In either case there is to be a distinction drawn between existing members of the Service and future entrants, and, provided that in making this change of method we make it at the same time quite clear that we do not retract in any way from the position we have taken up about the inquiry, and the position we have taken up that
out of that inquiry there might emerg suggestions for a change in the condition of the Service. We are not going in an, way back upon that opinion.
As I say, I have no strong opinion between one method and another, but do say that if we did change the method and did substitute an amending Act for the Order in Council, then, I think, their would be some question whether in on. of the other Service Clauses, or in the. Instrument of Instructions, or perhaps in both, we should, in appropriate words make it quite clear that we have no withdrawn from the position about tin inquiry, and that we have not shut down once and for all the possibility of change: being made in the future. Unless we took that course, we should be making it appear to Indians generally that it making what is only a change of method we were making a change of principle and that is certainly not my view, and] hope it will not be the view of the Committee

4.9 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I gathered from the speech of the Secretary of State that he is going to delete this Clause. Was I right in that assumption?

Sir S. HOARE: I will listen to the end of my right hon. Friend's speech.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I thought we had just had the pleasure of listening to a very full and agreeable exposition by the Secretary of State of the pros and cons of this matter, in which he said he had no strong opinion, and considering that he has been appealed to by that influential bodyguard of his, the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), and the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton)—considering that this trio—perhaps it would be more respectful to call them a trinity—have joined either their arguments or their applause to the appeal which has been made to him to drop the Clause, and that he himself says he does not see much in it one way or the other—or words to that effect —I should have thought the only conclusion was that the Clause should be dropped; otherwise, I do not understand the point of his speech. I ask him, did his speech mean that the Clause was to be dropped or not?

Sir S. HOARE: I will answer this question in my own time and in my own way.

Mr. CHURCHILL: But I was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman had just been dealing with the subject before the Committee, and, of course, on a matter of this kind in Debate the ordinary Members of the Committee are very interested to know whether, in fact, the Government intend to drop the Clause or not. If they do not intend to do so, then the Debate will naturally take a much more protracted course. Even if the Clause were to be deleted a few comments might be required, but the right hon. Gentleman should surely be able to say whether he will accept the proposal to delete the Clause or not. I will gladly give way to him if he will be willing to answer the question. I think it is a most extraordinary thing. The right hon. Gentleman, I am afraid, has got into a pet, and is irritated. Certainly I would be delighted if this were one of the occasions when the right hon. Gentleman would think it fit to answer the question.

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir; I am not going to answer the question now, because I do not regard my right hon. Friend's opinion as the only opinion in the Committee. I wish to hear other people's opinions besides his.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is, of course, a controversial method of replying, because we have been debating this question for some time. We debated it for half an hour on Friday. I am so glad that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to hustle us at all in this matter, and I certainly do not propose to delay the proceedings; but it seems to me that what we really want to know is whether he is going to withdraw the Clause or not. For my part—and I suppose I shall be allowed to be one of those whose opinions are taken into consideration in the matter—I lend my support entirely to the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings and to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not yet expressed any opinion.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I thought I heard from time to time those stentorian cheers which are so characteristic and so enlivening to our discussions, but if I have
misquoted the right hon. Gentleman I am sure I am very sorry. Anyhow, it is his opinion for which the Secretary of State is waiting, and now we have a perfectly clear explanation of this curious reserve of the Secretary of State. He has a concession to make— he is going to give up the Clause—about the only one in the whole course of the Bill. But the great act is still to be staged. The concession has to be made to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham himself. When all the lesser figures have been disposed of, then the toreador enters the ring, and administers the coup de grace to the Clause. I have been dealing so far with the peculiar Parliamentary situation, but I feel that, in view of this situation, I ought to give way at once, and enable the main act to be performed, and when the Committee knows where it is, and the Government have made up their mind and disclosed it to the Committee, it will then be possible for us to address ourselves to the actual question under discussion.

4.15 p.m.>

Mr. MOLSON: I am at a loss to understand why there is anything unusual from the point of view of Parliamentary procedure that the Secretary of State, having heard a certain number of opinions expressed in the Committee, should say that he is prepared to consider the matter with an open mind and that he would like to hear the expression of the views of other Members of the Committee. I recall that on the second day of the Committee stage because my right hon. Friend did not intervene soon enough he was taken to task by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) on the ground that he should have spoken earlier. On another occasion when he spoke rather sooner the right hon. Gentleman criticised him and said that he came to the Committee with his mind completely made up. I think he said that my right hon. Friend sent the Whips along to the smoking room and the library and that the dumb legions were marched along to give effect to the course which the India Office had decided on that morning. This afternoon, when my right hon. Friend said earlier in the Debate that he does not feel that there is any very important principle at stake and that he is prepared to defer to the opinions of the
Committee, once more the right hon. Member for Epping finds ground for complaint. The fact of the matter is that the right hon. Gentleman thought the Secretary of State was going to announce some modification in the Clause, and he wished to be able to say that there had been a revolt on the Government back benches and that for almost the first time the Government had given way.
Fair minded Members of the Committee will be glad that on a matter of this kind the Secretary of State, not feeling that there is any vital issue at stake, should be willing to defer to the opinion of the Members of the Committee and I hope that he will be prepared to agree to some modification of the Clause. If there were any great danger of an inquiry being held unduly soon and any likelihood of a transfer of the recruiting of these very important and vital services being carried out by Members of a Government of a different complexion in the near future, it might be a very important matter as a safeguard that instead of there only being the need for an Address from both Houses of Parliament an Act of Parliament should be required. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make it quite clear that although there is to be this inquiry and that at some time in the fuure, if Parliament in its wisdom so decides, the recruitment of the security services in India may be carried out on a different basis and that there may be a smaller proportion of Europeans in those services, there is at present no intention of going beyond the proportions laid down in the Lee Committee's Report. If in this Bill there was no provision for altering the present system of recruitment by which the Lee Committee's proportion is maintained, that would be a very valuable indication to India that it will mean very definitely a change of policy before recruitment is altered and the present proportions abandoned. Because there has been in the past so great a tendency for Indians to interpret words used in this House as being promises and pledges when there was no such intention, I think it would be a wise thing if instead of allowing so great and radical a change to be made by Order-in-Council an Act of Parliament should be necessary for that purpose.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I have listened with great care to what the Secretary of State said, and I agree with him that there is not much difference between the method proposed in the Clause and the method by way of the procedure of s new amending Bill. I cannot quite see what the case can be for a change, if a change should take place. I express the views of my hon. Friends when I say that we would rather stand by the Clause as drafted. There is not much difference in the two procedures, although there is a possibility of something very substantial being lost by a change. I have been somewhat apprehensive of the tremendous efforts there have been to safeguard, and safeguard and yet to safeguard the interests of the Civil Service in India. I think I have said before that so far as we are concerned we are entirely in accord with those who wish to safeguard the legitimate rights of our people who are now serving in India and to do nothing to interfere with their proper pay and their financial interests generally, but there can be only one effect upon Indian minds by these repeated efforts to erect additional barricades round the English section of the Indian Civil Service.
The Noble Lord opposite can be as disturbed as he likes, but the plain truth at the back of our minds is that it is the British section of the Indian Civil Service that we are concerned with. This constant concern in regard to the British section may, I fear, place them in a somewhat unfortunate position once this constitutional change has taken place in India. We may by this over-emphasis of the rights of the Civil Service, the British section of the Civil Service, create a sort of antagonism which all of us would personally deplore. I consider that Clause 251 amply meets the situation. An Order-in-Council can be produced by the Secretary of State, but it cannot become effective without the sanction of both Houses of Parliament. What more can hon. Members want? I fail to see in what particular the interests of the civil servants are in any way jeopardised by Clauses 250 and 251. It seems to me that they are amply safeguarded and I hope that the Secretary of State will stand firm by Clause 251 as it now appears.

4.23 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: I intervene in view of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a definite appeal for the opinion of the Committee before the Committee went to a vote. He said that he was not ready at an earlier stage to give his final decision. I have listened to the Debate and I have read very carefully the Debate of last Friday, and I appreciate the fact that this Clause deals with the question of the future recruitment of the Civil Service. There is a vital question at stake and it makes a great difference, despite the opinions of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones), as to whether if there is to be a change in the appointing authority for these vital branches of the Civil Service in the future the transfer should be done by an amending Bill or merely by an Order in Council. When the Government of India. of 1919 was passed, and earlier when the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms came into operation there was complete apathy on the part of the British public on the whole question of India. There will not be the same state of affairs again, because it is widely appreciated throughout the country what these vast changes mean. It is appreciated that appointments to the Civil Service and the maintenance of the Civil Service to some extent as it is to-day is, in the words of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). the steel frame on which the Government of India rests.
Therefore, no question could be more important than that of recruitment in the future and whether the Secretary of State shall by Order in Council transfer his power to "such authority as may be specified" or whether we shall in such an event proceed by legislation, when we know the circumstances. The Secretary of State is asking us to legislate in Clause 251 and to say that in future if there is to be a vital change of this kind it shall be made by Order in Council, which is to lie on the Table for approval by the two Houses. If we proceed on the lines of legislation public attention will be called to the matter. We shall have opinions from this country and from India and we shall know at the time of the legislation exactly what are the circumstances and the reasons of the Government for their action. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will
drop Clause 251 and if there is to be a complete change in regard to the appointing authority in the future we shall do it by Act of Parliament.

4.29 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I rise, before any toreador has thrust a javelin into my breast, to thank the Committee for the advice that they have given me. I regard this question, not as a Service question, but as a 'Parliamentary question. From the point of view of the Services, I do not regard it as either a worse or a better safeguard, according as we adopt the alternative of an Order in Council or an amending Act, but so far as this House is concerned I can to some extent sympathise with the views of the majority of hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate, namely, that the question is important if you prefer the procedure of an amending Act to the sanction of Orders in Council by Parliamentary Resolutions. That being so, and regarding it as a question of method, I am quite prepared to see the Clause negatived with this understanding, that I will consider whether any alternative Clause is necessary, making it clear that we have not withdrawn from the general policy of the Joint Select Committee, namely, that an inquiry will take place and that changes may take place in the future. Whether, in a new Clause or in some other part of the Bill or in the Instrument of Instructions, I shall propose to make that clear.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope I may be permitted to offer my congratulations to the Secretary of State for the concession he has made to the opinion of the Committee after having taken the greatest possible care to ascertain it. I must also congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) whose persuasive pleading determined the Secretary of State on which side of the fence he would come down. It is highly interesting to see the secret springs by which our legislation is determined. We have seen it brought into the light of day. The Secretary of State, after months and years of studying this question, was undecided, like one of those rocks which only need the infant touch to cause it to slip down. Then comes along the hon. Member for Doncaster who applies the necessary impulse at the right place and
at the right moment, and the Committee is in the presence of an event rare in our experience in legislation which is passing through the Committee. I congratulate the Secretary of State on his decision and upon the manner of it, but I feel that in taking this step he has made the Committee, as it were, partners with him at any rate in the omission of a part of the Bill.
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman need feel any serious apprehension about the effect which will he produced on Indian opinion. He used the expression that he was afraid of antagonising politically-minded Indians. He need not worry about that; he has antagonised them all already. I was reading in the "Times" newspaper, his own organ, the special organ of Indian defeatists, only this morning a report from their Delhi correspondent, in which he said that India may rightly claim that politically-minded India is universally opposed to the Bill, or words to that effect. There is no question of arguing it any more; it is admitted that from one end to the other all politically-minded classes are already hostile to the Bill and determined to do their utmost to resist it.

The CHAIRMAN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not pursue that argument, because it does not arise on this Clause.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I was endeavouring to fortify the Secretary of State in the decision he has taken, to proceed with courage on this path, because the apprehension that he may antagonise the politically-minded Indians has no substance, they being completely antagonised already. The Secretary of State must also feel that in taking this Clause off the face of the Bill he is removing an element of uncertainty which will be fatal to the recruitment of the Indian Services. I well remember the great efforts which were made by the late Lord Birkenhead to improve the number and quality of the candidates coming forward for this Civil Service examination for India. He undertook a pilgrimage throughout the country, and as a result of his campaign there was a great improvement in the numbers and quality of people coming forward as candidates.
But lamentable effects upon the recruiting have already been produced by the policy of the Secretary of State.

Sir S. HOARE: They have been considerably better since that campaign.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Since the Bill was introduced?

Sir S. HOARE: In the last eight or nine years.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have been assured to the contrary. What are you laughing at?

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I was laughing, because there has been no examination since the Bill was introduced, and the right hon. Gentleman's claim is rather like the claim of a certain regime in a foreign country, that it had largely increased the birth-rate six months after it had come into power.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should have said since the operation of the Bill has been brought under review. I think I could give the Noble Lord and the Secretary of State, if they are in any doubt, some figures which are very disconcerting indeed. However, if to the already great despondency which hangs over the Indian Civil Service you are going to add the uncertainty that their careers may be placed on an entirely different basis in future years you will undoubtedly increase the deterioration in the character and quality of those who come forward. I do not suppose that you will fail to find people who will come forward, but they will not have the educational qualities or the high character which has enabled the Civil Service in the past to do such remarkable work in India.. Remembering how few there are of the Indian Civil Service compared with the enormous masses of people whose affairs they regulate and guide, it seems to me a serious thing indeed to lower the class of candidates coming forward or cast any uncertainty over the future of the Service. Both from the point of view that the evil effects on Indian public opinion need not deter him and that to some extent he will be undoing the harm done to the future of the Indian Civil Service by removing this additional cause of unsettlement, I feel that we ought to acknowledge that the Secretary of State
has taken a wise step in deferring to the opinion expressed from so many quarters of the Committee.
However, I must enter my caveat about what the Secretary of State said on the subject of introducing other words in some other part of the Bill. I hope that he is not going to take away with one hand what he is giving with the other. I hope that we shall not encounter at a later stage, on Report, the ghost of Clause 251 risen from the grave in which we are now by general consent interring it, with all the grisly marks of its sojourn there. I trust that we have seen the last of this quite needless cause of disturbance to the already harassed Indian Civil Service. For my part, while I welcome the concession given and the gracious way in which it came, I shall certainly exercise the most constant vigilance in an examination of the alternative Clause, or verbiage, which he proposes to introduce at a later stage.
I must also say, on the general Parliamentary point of view, that there is all the difference between a Bill which passes through all its stages in this House, and an Order-in-Council which acquires validity by a single division. Moreover, it seems to me that the procedure under this Clause, and Clause 286 which governs it, throws upon the House of Lords the burden of giving a veto to a proposal, to a policy, put forward by the responsible Government of the day. To throw the burden on the House of Lords of imposing a veto, apart from the regulating and mitigating procedure of the Parliament Act, is to expose that Chamber to a constitutional burden which in its present unreformed condition it is unable to bear. From that point of view, we may rejoice that this Clause has been withdrawn, and, although we cannot yet say in what form the proposal will again come before us, I feel that the Debates on the subject, the careful examination which the matter has received, have been fully justified, and the care and attention which hon. Members are paying to this Bill in its various stages is another unsolicited tribute to the Secretary of State.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: We think that the incomplete union of hearts on the other
side of the Committee should be demonstrated in the Lobby, and we shall certainly vote against the withdrawal of the Clause. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has pointed out the great difference between an Order-in-Council and a Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is looking forward to the future to more triumphs on the Floor of the House, because everything under this Bill which requires any Amendment will have to be done by way of a Bill. Although he is very active now, it may be that in the time to come he will relapse into that state of indifference which was described by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), and which he regretted occurred at the time of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. The right hon. Member for Epping was one of the chief exponents of that indifference. In the future we may not see the right hon. Gentleman taking a major share in Debates on Bills concerning India. We consider that the suggestion of an amending Bill is entirely uncalled for, and it only complicates the proposals of the Bill. It is far more difficult to introduce an amending Bill than an Order-in-Council. The hon. Member for Barnstaple used a phrase about a steel frame. There is not much difference between a steel frame and a cage. The steel frame is interpreted in India as a cage. We on this side object to the cage.

4.45 p.m.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has taken upon himself the role of Cassandra in this Debate. It is not a, role which is generally grateful to the prophet's contemporaries, and it must also often be distressing to the prophet himself. But my right hon. Friend plays it in so merry a spirit that he relieves us all from the fears which he tries to instil in our minds. No man could be so merry if he really believed all the disasters that he prophesies. I rise, not to answer my right hon. Friend's intervention at an earlier stage, but because I was a member of the Joint Select Committee, and I think it is only fair to the Secretary of State to say that in this Clause he has followed exactly the recommendation which that Committee made. I am bound to say that when I saw the Clause I thought he
had departed from our recommendation, and the only explanation that I can formulate for myself is that my attention was so much concentrated on the focus point at which the inquiry must take place that I paid too little attention to the alternative which was suggested.
I do support the reforms. I am certain that if the reforms are successful, as I hope they will be, a large part of their success will be due to the Civil Service, both Englishmen and Indians. I think it is of the first importance, wherever we can without injury to our main purpose, to give the largest measure of comfort and assurance and reassurance to that service. I agree with the Secretary of State that there is not a very profound difference between the two methods. I agree with him also that whatever we do to-day must be, when we have had more experience, subject to inquiry, and may, though it by no means necessarily will, require alteration as the result of that inquiry. I agree with all that. But there is a difference between having that inquiry presented to us in the form of a Bill with the full consideration which a Bill necessarily demands, and having it presented to us only in the form of a resolution to approve an Order in Council in which it is embodied. It is well worth our while and well worth the while of the Secretary or State to make the change which my right hon. Friend has now agreed to make. We ought to recognise that there must be, when sufficient experience has been obtained, an inquiry into this matter, and that further legislation may be required as a result of that inquiry.

4.49 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I speak for the politically-educated Hindus. You will not find among that section any strong opposition to the removal of this Clause and the substitution of an Act of Parliament for the action of the Secretary of State. After all, if we can bring in an Act of Parliament so amending this Bill, we can amend it in other directions as well. If there is a chance of amending this Bill, if there is a chance of bringing in a new Bill to meet a changing situation, the situation may change in other directions as well. We have been led to understand that this Bill is in the
nature of a treaty between the Government and the Princes in India, a treaty as permanent as the laws of the Medes and Persians. If we can alter it, then the treaty idea goes to the wall, and there is some hope that in future India will get a Bill not so manifestly unfair to the Hindus as this Bill.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I do not think that the arguments advanced throughout the day have been sufficient to set aside what was recommended by the Joint Select Committee. That decision was arrived at very definitely after considering the whole position, and while I agree with the Secretary of State that there is not a great deal of difference in the political machinery he proposes to adopt, either by Order in Council or a new Act, I am sure that this change will be exaggerated in India, that it will be looked upon as a concession to the reactionaries, and the very fact that it has been welcomed in such enthusiastic terms by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) will put a stamp upon it which will be recognised. For myself I think that if, on these matters, the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) is going into one Lobby my safe course is to go into the other Lobby. Apart from that, I regret that this step has been taken. I think that more importance will be given to it in India than we estimate; and certainly I think it is a pity to suggest to India that before this change can be carried out there is to be another Act of Parliament. Everyone knows the difficulties that arise when a Bill is brought into the House, the delays and the pleas that other business has a prior claim. Therefore, if a vote is taken on this Clause I and my friends will be obliged to stand by the Bill as introduced and by the Clause as drawn to represent in statutory language the expressed recommendation of the Joint Committee.

Mr. CHURCHILL: ; I must, in view of that declared intention of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), assure the Secretary of State of my personal resolve to support him in the. Lobby.

4.53 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: We shall all go into the Lobby with mixed motives, it seems. Even after the friendly observation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping
(Mr. Churchill), in honesty I must say to him that I go into the Lobby with motives very different from his. I definitely regard this as a question of machinery. Further, I go as withdrawing in no respect from the view of the Joint Committee that an inquiry must take place, that changes may very likely emerge as a result of that inquiry, and that in any case there must be Parliamentary sanction to the recommendations of change.

My right hon. Friend, on the other hand, goes into the Lobby with the desire of never seeing any change in any circumstances at any time in the future. Therefore, he and I vote with totally different motives.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 233.

Division No.145.]
AYES.
[4.55 p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Batey, Joseph
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Cleary, J. J.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Cove, William G.
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Rea, Walter Russell


Daggar, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, Stephen Owen
John, William
Thorne, William James


Dobble, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Kirkwood, David
West, F. R.


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon George
Wilmot, John


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Lawton, John James
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Logan, David Gilbert



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T.(Leeds, W.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Clarke, Frank
Haslam, Henry(Horn castle)


Albery, Irving James
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Colvllie, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Conant, R. J. E.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cooke, Douglas
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cooper, A. Duff
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Assheton, Ralph
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Crooke, J. Smedley
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Atholl, Duchess of
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Balniel, Lord
Crossley, A. C.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Dickle, John P.
Iveagh, Countess of


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Donner, P. W.
Jackson, Sir Henry(Wandsworth, C.)


Bernays, Robert
Duckworth, George A. V.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Blindell, James
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Jamieson, Douglas


Bossom, A. C.
Duggan, Hubert John
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Boulton, W. W.
Elliot, Rt. Hon Walter
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Ellis, Sir R Geoffrey
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Eimley, Viscount
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Brass, Captain Sir William
Erskine, Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Evans, Capt Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Levy, Thomas.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fox, Sir Gilford
Lewis, Oswald


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks.,Newb'y)
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Liddall, Walter S.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Fremantie, Sir Francis
Lindsay, Kenneth(Kilmarnock)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Burnett, John George
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Lister, Rt. Hon Sir Philip Cunllfie-


Butler, Richard Austen
Ganzonl, Sir John
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Butt, Sir Alfred
Gilmour, Lt.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lioyd, Geoffrey


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Golf, Sir Park
Loder, Captain J. de Vera


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Granville, Edgar
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Castlereagh, Viscount
Graves, Marjorie
Mabane, William


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Grimston, R. V.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R.(Prtsmth.,S.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macdonald, Capt P. D. (I. of W.)


Cazalet, Capt V. A. (Chippenham)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
McKie, John Hamilton


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Hartington, Marquess of
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hartland, George A.
Margesson, Capt Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Strauss, Edward A.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Rickards, George William
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Summarsby, Charles H.


Mitchell, Harold(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Taylor, C. S (Eastbourne)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane(Streatham)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Runge, Norah Cecil
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Tryon, Rt. Hon George Clement


Moreing, Adrian C.
Rutherford, John(Edmonton)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L,


Morris-Jones, Dr J. H. (Denbigh)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Nation, Brigadler-General J. J. H.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Wallace, Sir John(Dunfermline)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Salt, Edward W.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Nunn, William
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Sandys, Duncan
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Orr Ewing, I. L.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Palmer, Francis Noel
Savery, Samuel Servington
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Patrick, Colin M.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Percy, Lord Eustace
Shaw, Helen B.(Lanark, Bothwell)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smith, Sir Robert(Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Somervell, Sir Donalo
Womersley, Sir Walter


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Soper, Richard
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Rathbone, Eleanor
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.



Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Spens, William Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Stanley, Rt. Hon Lord (Fylde)
Sir George Penny and Major


Remer, John R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
George Davies.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 252.—(Joint services and posts.)

5.4 p.m.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, in page 139, line 10, after the first "the," to insert "maintenance or."
These two drafting Amendments, very small as the Committee will see, deal with the question of joint services when two or more Provinces, or Provinces in the Federation, by agreement wish to have a joint service. The Clause, as drafted, merely covers Services to be created in the future. As there are such services already in existence it is necessary that the Clause should also deal with maintenance as well as creation.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendment made.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

5.8 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Before we pass from this Clause, I would like to draw attention to what it seeks to do. It is a Clause in which the Government seek to provide for the continuation of a service, wider than a provincial service, in those cases in which the Secretary of State no longer retains power of recruitment. This combination and co-operation between Provinces is no doubt desired to give more opportunities for transfers and promotion than are to be
found in the services limited to one Province, and no doubt it is hoped in that way to attract a better type of man, particularly, perhaps, of Englishman, than the provincial service alone can hope to attract. I suppose that there might arise under this Clause the possibility, if an inter-provincial service were formed, of there being some supervising posts such as inspector-general of forests or inspector-general of police. The fact that the Government have included a Clause providing for inter-provincial co-operation seems an admission that they recognise how ineffectual isolated provincial services may be in securing the right type ')f man, and how necessary it may be to have supervisory posts extending over more than one Province. It is not surprising if they recognise that some machinery of this kind is necessary, because the need for recruiting on a basis wider than that of one Province only was very strongly stressed to the Joint Select Committee by both the officers with whom they had consultations with regard to Irrigation and Forests. Both are services which until now have been recruited by the Secretary of State. I do not forget that he is holding out some hope that he may be able to save recruitment for the irrigation service, but the Bill, as originally drafted, provided for the cessation of his recruitment to both these services.
The need for a wider basis than a provincial one was very strongly stressed
before the Joint Select Committee by an ex-inspector-general of forests, and by police witnesses. The first pointed out the need for a common policy with regard to forests, and the need for recruitment by a central authority. The police witnesses stressed the need for Federal supervision and for an inspector-general of police. It is possible that under this Clause we might have something of that sort with regard to the police if the Provinces could be got to agree. Then the need for some guidance in education was strongly stressed to the Simon Commission, and if the Provinces can be got to act together, it is possible that out of this Clause might be saved the post of commissioner of education, a post which exists to-day but which will go by the board when this Bill becomes law. Because this Clause makes it conceivable that there will be some central supervision if the Provinces can agree on this, we so far welcome it. It is an improvement on the White Paper, as I do not think the White Paper provided for anything of this kind. But we have to ask ourselves whether it is probable that the Provinces will agree on inter-provincial co-operation in this matter. In particular, will the Governments of those Provinces where there is most need of supervision from the outside be willing or ready to ask for inter-provincial co-operation and the appointment of some supervisory officer? Or will they ask for it soon enough? May it not be that much time will be allowed to elapse before any action of this kind is taken? In that case, is it not certain that the inefficiency which exists now is bound to become much worse; and even if the Provinces are ready to co-operate may it not be difficult to get them to give a supervisory officer adequate power really effectively to supervise provincial work?
I have been told by a retired inspector-general of public health that he spent much time in trying, through his Government, to get the Government of India to get various Provincial. Governments into line in a common policy with regard to public health—a matter of tremendous importance to India in regard to which the Provincial Government concerned had shown great interest. After months of correspondence, insufficient agreement had been reached between the Provinces and nothing could be done. The whole
project had to be pigeon-holed. Therefore, I cannot feel optimistic about this Clause. I recognise that it is an endeavour on the part of the Government to remedy what I feel to be a very great harm that the Bill proposes to do in stopping recruitment by the Secretary of State for forests and possibly of his recruitment for irrigation. But with all the strong provincial feeling we hear of, the probability is that in those Provinces where things most need supervision the Provinces will be least ready to co-operate in setting up a supervising authority. The Clause, although a step in the right direction, does therefore serve to bring before us all that my right hon. Friend has refused to put in an earlier Clause in refusing to retain the right of recruitment in education, agriculture and forests, and I cannot help feeling misgivings as to whether this Clause will really do what we wish it to do in attracting the right type of men, and so help to ensure efficiency in the various provincial departments.

Clause 253 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 254.—(Composition and staff of commissions.)

5.13 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: I beg to move, in page 140, line 17, to leave out "Secretary of State" and to insert "Governor-General in his discretion."
This Clause sets up the Public Service Commission, and it states that the chairman and other members shall be appointed in the case of the Federal Commission by the Secretary of State. In this Amendment, we wish to substitute for the "Secretary of State" the "Governor-General in his discretion." I am not sure from what I have heard this afternoon what precise method it is that enables the Secretary of State to accept Amendments from back benchers, but I suggest to him that our Amendment is not calculated in any very great degree to weaken the effect of the Clause as it stands. What it does, however, is to remove from Whitehall this question of the appointment of members of the Commission. This seems a comparatively small matter, but it is one of those matters
in which the question of prestige from the point of view of the politically-minded Indian is involved. In spite of all that has been said to the effect that the politically-minded Indian is against the Bill, I believe that he will help to work it when it becomes law. That being so, it seems to me that in a matter like this, which leads up to an important point in connection with Indian administration, namely the question of the services, it would be a wise step and one which would not run counter to the idea of the promoters of the Bill, to leave this power to the Governor-General in his discretion.
The Governor-General in his discretion would, almost of necessity, consult the Secretary of State. The Governor-General, I take it, is representing His Majesty's Government and the India Office and he would take steps to see that these appointments were made in accordance with the views of the Government and the India Office. Indeed, I am at a loss to understand why the Secretary of State should be brought into it at all in connection with the Federal Commission, when the Provincial Governors are to have the power in their discretion of appointing the Provincial Commissions. I fail to see the reason for this distinction. If this Bill is to be a success and if it is to be worked by the politically-minded Indians they should not be led to suffer from an inferiority complex. They should be made to realise that they are taking an actual part in the government of India, and that the administration of Whitehall has been removed as far as possible. I think the Secretary of State might very well meet us upon what is, as I have said, a comparatively small point but one involving a question of prestige.

5.18 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): When this matter was considered by the Joint Select Committee they made no observations upon this point, and as it was passed in silence we may take it that the proposal now in the Bill had their approval. I appreciate the arguments of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield). He will remember that on Thursday evening the Committee discussed the question of the actual recruiting authority for the major services,
and on the question of whether the services should be recruited by the Secretary of State or by the Governor-General in his discretion, I used the words of the Joint Select Committee in which they referred to that question as being one of form rather than substance. The arguments used by the hon. Member seem to show that he regards this question also as one of form rather than substance, or, in his own words, as a question of prestige rather than a question involving any real difference in the nature of the appointments which will be made.
We have considered the Amendment sympathetically but we consider it best to adhere to the terms of the Bill. We have taken the advice and opinion of the Services and the Government of India and, as far as we can ascertain their views, they consider that there would be more confidence if the existing practice were continued. Under the existing practice appointments to the Public Service Commission in the Centre are made in the manner which the Bill proposes for the future. A Governor in his discretion, in the case of a Public Service Commission in one of the Provinces of India, has that function. In view of the fact that the system has the confidence of the Services which will come under the Commissions to be set up and which will have important work to do in connection with the Constitution, and in view of the fact that, if we were to make the appointing authority the Governor-General in his discretion, he would really represent the Secretary of State and there would be no real difference, we would ask the hon. Member not to press this Amendment. At the same time we do not want to be unsympathetic to his point of view and we realise that if any new arguments were brought forward there might be a great deal to be said on the question of prestige to which he attaches so much importance.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Gentleman always seems to think that it is necessary to make every kind of concession to the feelings of almost everybody except the elected members in India. We have to consider the smallest susceptibility of the Princes or the least flutter of apprehension in the breast of a, civil servant who may possibly be affected, but we never seem to consider the feelings of
the elected representatives. Here is a case in which, once again, the Government are emphasising Whitehall. I do not think it is necessary to emphasise Whitehall in this connection. We want, as far as we can, to make India mistress in her own house. It is obvious that the Public Service Commissions will have to be appointed by someone who is impartial and above political controversy, and I am sure that the Ministers in India would agree with that view. Already in the case of the Provinces this matter has been put into the hands of the Governors. I cannot see why the same power cannot be put in the hands of the Governor-General at the Centre without lugging in the Secretary of State at every point. If it is necessary to have some kind of power here, different from the powers of the Ministers, it is surely much better for the people in India that the matter should be taken out of the hands of Whitehall. Hon. Members ought to realise the feeling which exists in India against always having to bow down to an authority situated miles away from India. We should try to get rid of that feeling. It will make no serious difference in the long run in this case, and surely it is about time that we made some concession to the feelings of Indian politicians.

5.23 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I feel myself that it does not make any substantial difference whether we accept or reject this Amendment. In practice, no doubt, the 'appointments will be made upon the recommendation of the Governor-General. I cannot conceive of a case in which the Secretary of State would appoint a chairman of this Commission who had not been nominated by the Governor-General. As there is so little difference between the one course and the other, I wish to say that, provided it is clear that it is to be "the Governor-General in his discretion," I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, in page 140, line 15, at the end, to insert:
Provided that at least one-half of the members of every Public Service Commission shall be persons who at the dates of their respective appointments have held office for at least ten years under the Crown in India.
The composition of the Public Service Commission is in the Clause left entirely to the appointing 'authority, and we have just been considering the constitution of the 'appointing authority at the Centre and in the Provinces.. It is now proposed to add this proviso which in the main covers the Amendment in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer)—in page 140, line 15, at the end, to insert:
Provided that not less than one-half of the members of any such Commission shall be persons who, at the time of their appointment, have been for not less than fifteen years members of a service of the Crown in India.
On the question of the number of years of service, we have taken ten years, because that is the period required in the case of appointments of judges, and there seems no particular reason for adopting the period of 15 years suggested in the Noble Lord's Amendment. Apart from that, on the question of wording we prefer the wider terms of our Amendment and the words "under the Crown in India" rather than "members of a service of the Crown in India." The latter wording would limit it to those actually in the services, whereas under our wording an ex-judge who was not a member of the Indian Civil Service but who might be very suitable for an appointment of this kind would be eligible.

The CHAIRMAN: Before the discussion proceeds any further I wish to say that I did not propose to call the Amendment which is on the Paper in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) because I thought it could quite properly be discussed on this Amendment.

5.27 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: This Amendment seeks to remedy an omission in the Bill and what I believe also to have been an omission in the report of the Joint Select Committee, namely the absence of any indication that it was desirable that the Public Service Commissions, in view of the technical work which they have to do, affecting the services, should consist of a certain proportion of persons with knowledge of service questions. I ant afraid, however, that the Government Amendment does not attempt to meet the point in a wholly satisfactory manner. On the question of the period of service
under the Crown required to qualify one-half of the membership of a Commission, it is true that ten years is the period mentioned in other Clauses of the Bill, in different connections. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, however, in defending the ten-year period omitted to mention the very strong recommendation in favour of a longer period of 15 or even 20 years made to the Secretary of State in the memorial officially presented by the Bengal Association and backed up by all the Civil Service Associations. That memorial stated:
The Public Service Commissions require members with local knowledge which can hardly be obtained by persons with less than 15 or 20 years service under the Crown.
That is why the longer period has been adopted in the other Amendment. I should like to add on the question of the period of service, that it was very strongly put to me by a man with 40 years experience in India that one required to have at least 25 years in India before gaining a proper understanding of the people. One cannot feel that the services are asking for anything exceptional when they ask that these appointments should be confined to people with not less than from 15 to 20 years' experience. I think, in view of the weight that attaches to the memorial on this matter, signed by practically all the service associations in India, my hon. Friend might have referred to that memorial and told us why he differed from it. They go on. to say that they consider that at least half the members of a Public Service Commission should be public servants, but the words used in the Government's Amendment are:
persons who … have held office … under the Crown in India.
I understand that that phrase would not only cover members of the public services and ex-judges, as my hon. Friend said, but also might include persons who have held ministerial office. There would therefore be a great risk of bringing in a political element, which everyone is anxious to avoid. The idea of the Public Service Commissions is to try to get bodies which will give advice in regard to appointments, postings, and the other matters mentioned in Clause 255, as far as possible removed from the question of appointments of ministers on communal or other undesirable grounds. That is what we
fear in the Amendment of the Government, that it would allow the appointment of persons who have held ministerial office in that one half, and, of course, there would be nothing to prevent the appointment of political persons in the other half, so that you might get either the whole or the great majority of a Public Service Commission consisting of persons appointed for political antecedents instead of for service antecedents. In that case it would be impossible to hope that the Commission would be free of political influence. Therefore, I should like my right hon. Friend very seriously to consider whether he would not adopt the wording of my Noble Friend's Amendment, namely:
members of a service of the Crown in India.
That wording would give effect to the expressed wishes of the Civil Service Associations, and I do not think my right hon. Friend can deny the force of the memorials that have come to him in the name of all the Civil Service Associations in India. They ask that at least half the members of the Public Service Commissions should be members of services in India, not people who have held office under the Crown, but members of Government services. The Government's Amendment opens the possibility that the majority or even the whole of the Public Service Commissions might be staffed by men of political antecedents, and that seems to me very undesirable and directly contrary to the expressed wish of the Civil Service.

Sir B. PETO: On a point of Order. In view of your Ruling, Sir Dennis, in regard to the Amendment standing in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), that we can only discuss the Government's Amendment—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is in error. I said that it would be in order to discuss the Noble Lord's Amendment on this Amendment.

Sir B. PETO: My point is that if this Amendment is inserted in the Clause, the Noble Lord's Amendment will fall, and, in view of that possibility, I ask whether you will accept a manuscript Amendment to the Government's Amendment, to substitute "fifteen" for "ten," and before the words "the
Crown in India" to leave out the words "of a service of."

The CHAIRMAN: That would be two Amendments to the proposed Amendment. I would accept the first one, certainly.

5.35 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I think I can dispose of the discussion, in which I do not think there is any substantial disagreement between us. First, as to the period of years, I have no strong views as between 10 or 15. I am, however, advised that 10 has this great advantage, that a, judge gets his pension at the end of 11½ years, and a judge is very often just the type of man that we want to retain for this service in India before he returns to England. I therefore suggest to my Noble Friend that, unless she has strong reasons to the contrary, 10 is better than 15. As to the other point she made, let me make it clear to her that it is not our intention that ex-ministers should be eligible for these posts. I think the words of my Noble Friend's Amendment go too far and would cut out a judge, whereas in our Amendment we have words that, on the one hand, would keep out politicians and, on the other hand, would allow judges to be in. I therefore suggest that the Committee should accept our words now, and I will see that those two points are met.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to say a few words on this matter. I am getting a little bit tired of this continual girding against politicians in India. Who are we, I would like to know, to be girding against them, that they may make political appointments? Only the other day we appointed an ex-Minister to a very important post in this country, and almost every Governor-General or Viceroy in India has served in one or other of the political parties in this country. This continual setting up of one standard of political honesty for an Indian and another for us makes me sick, absolutely sick, when I know, as we all know, if we are honest people, that Members come to this House and obtain, as I did, a position on the Treasury Bench; and might have obtained a position outside the House at a permanent salary, and nobody would have called that in question in this
country, so why should you call it in question in India and look at all Indian politicians as worse people than ourselves?
I do not believe there is any corruption, in the sense that the word "corruption" conveys, in the administration nad government of our country, but I want to believe, and I am sure it is true, that when the Indians have the same responsibility put upon them as is put upon us, they will be as honest and as straightforward as hon. Members here. When we remember the corruption that used to exist in this House, and when we know that that has been overcome because of the extension of political power, I believe the same thing will happen in India, but in any case I do not think it lies with us to be continually girding against the Indian politicians as if politics in India were some unworthy thing that no one ought to touch except an Englishman from this country, who very often has served a good political apprenticeship here.

5.40 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: It is a much narrower issue. May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the wide issue to which he refers. It is simply this question, that in setting up a Public Service Commission, is it not better to put on it people who are out of politics?

Mr. LANSBURY: I agree—if you can get them.

Sir S. HOARE: That has always been our practice here, so far as I know, and that is all we are discussing now. I hope the Committee will accept our Amendment.

5.41 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am extremely glad to hear my right hon. Friend's statement, and we will leave it to him, to find a better form of words before the Report stage. But as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has referred to me and to what I said just now, I feel bound to point out that I said nothing except to refer to what was a well established fact before the Joint Select Committee and the Simon Commission, namely, that Ministers will be subject to a great deal of pressure from members of their own community.

Mr. LANSBURY: They are here too.

Duchess of ATHOLL: The right hon. Gentleman has held ministerial office. When he was a. Member of the Government, did he have any pressure from members of the Church to which he belongs to make appointments in the civil service? The right hon. Gentleman misrepresented what I said. It is a well-known fact that it is a difficulty that exists in India, and that is all that I referred to in my speech.

Mr. LANSBURY: As a local administrator, I have been pestered by all kinds of people about contracts, about jobs, and about patronage generally, and when I was at the Office of Works not a day passed without someone wanting either a job of a contract.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 140, line 17, leave out "Secretary of State," and insert "Governor-General in his discretion."— [Mr. Attlee.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: I propose to put Clauses 255, 256, and 257 together.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I should like to say a word or two on Clause 255, Sir Dennis

CLAUSE 255.—(Functions of Public Service Commissions.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.43 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: On this Clause I wish to refer particularly to paragraph (d) of Sub-section (2), which is a point that is very much stressed by the representatives of the Civil Service Associations in their memorial presented to the Secretary of State. This is one of the reasons why they are so anxious that there should be a due proportion, at least one half, of persons on the Public Service Commissions who understand the difficulties of the services and will give them a fair hearing in case of any claims being made against them. On page 7 of the memorial will be found a very serious statement as to the considerable number of claims already made against officers on account of their actions in dealing with the civil disobedience movement. They say that none of these claims has been substantiated, but they appre-
hend a great many more claims of this kind in future, and therefore I am very glad to know that my right hon. Friend will amend the wording of Clause 254.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. SPENS: May I raise a point with reference to an Amendment in my name, which you did not call, Sir Dennis, to add the words:
Nothing in this section shall operate so as to prevent all appointments and promotions of and disciplinary matters affecting members of the subordinate ranks of the various police forces in India being finally made or dealt with by the Inspector-General or Commissioner of Police concerned in accordance with the Acts, rules, regulations, or orders relating to the same, respectively.
There is grave anxiety among police officers as to whether and to what extent Public Service Commissions will have the right of interfering with civil appointments. It seems to me that in the Clause as drafted it is possible for the Governor to make regulations to take out of the power of the Public Service Commissions the right of—

The CHAIRMAN: May I interrupt the hon. Member and call his attention to Clause 232?

Mr. SPENS: It appears that Clause 232 may cover the point, but I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would make some statement as to exactly what the position is.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: I would like the Secretary of State to explain the meaning of the words "shall be consulted" in line 22 of the Clause. Clearly there is no obligation upon the authorities to accept the recommendation of a Public Service Commission, but in disciplinary matters will the officer whose conduct is called into question have the right to know the commission's findings? Will the Secretary of State explain the relationship between the appointing authority and the consultative body?

5.46 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: I would like the Secretary of State to tell us how far appointments must be upon the results of the examinations. The experience which I have had of appointments in the Colonial Service has brought me to the conclusion that a literary examination did not form
the best test of the suitability of candidates for appointment, and that personal record and character and, in some cases also, the personality of the candidate, could not be wholly excluded as qualifications, in addition to whatever may be the necessary qualifying literary tests. I would like to ask the Secretary of State to consider whether there is any risk of confining the appointments purely on the results of the examinations?

5.47 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I tabled an Amendment which was not called, not so much that I wanted it to be carried, as to get some clarification of how the Public Service Commissions will work. I tried to look up the statute which governs our own Civil Service Commission and I could riot find it, but I was under the impression that the Civil Service Commission of this country was created to protect ourselves against ourselves, in other words, to protect Members of Parliament from using their position for the purpose of getting their friends into remunerative Government posts. I have never examined the exact statutory position of the Civil Service Commission, but I have found it very useful because, when people have written to me to suggest that they should be appointed to some new post under Government, I have always pointed out that, as far as I am aware, Members of Parliament have no power in the matter and that, as a broad principle, support from Members of Parliament is a disadvantage rather than otherwise. That, of course, does not prevent a Member of Parliament being given as a reference by a person who is applying because he may be the person whom he knows best, and obviously a Member of Parliament should not be deprived of his normal citizen's rights in such a matter.
As I read this Clause, I am not clear how the Public Service Commissions will work. In the first Sub-section it says that they will conduct examinations, but it does not say that before anybody is appointed he must pass an examination. There is that implication, but there is nothing mandatory about it. It seems rather vague. It is true that the commissions have to be consulted on all matters relating to methods of recruitment, but their advice need not be taken.
It is a case, apparently, where, whoever consults them, will act subsequently in his individual judgment, to use words which we frequently use in connection with this Bill. My view is that persons should not be appointed unless they have been proved in some way by the Public Service Commissions to be persons in every way suitable for appointments. I am not suggesting that the commissions should make the appointments, but before anybody is given an appointment he ought to have received the approval of one of the Public Service Commissions. I should like the Secretary of State to explain the Clause as he sees it, and to say, if it is not mandatory, whether he is prepared to consider making it so in the direction I have indicated.

5.50 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: With reference to the question of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), it was the definite view of the Joint Select Committee, and it is the definite view of my advisers both here and in India, that the Public Service Commissions had much better be advisory. Experience goes to show that they are likely to have more influence if they are advisory than if they have mandatory powers. The danger is that if you give them mandatory powers you then set up two governments in a Province and two governments at the Centre, and there is everything to be said against a procedure of that kind. From many points of view it is much better that they should be advisory. The hon. Gentleman asked about the position of the Civil Service Commission here. The powers of that commission are strictly limited. It is nothing more than an examining body. It gives certificates to the candidates who have been successful, and after that it has none of the powers that we suggest—I agree upon a voluntary basis—that the Public Service Commissions in India should have. The analogy, therefore, is by no means exact. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) asked if the appointments are to be restricted to the results of competitive literary examinations. They are not. I have answered the question of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) whether the commissions are advisory or executive bodies.

Mr. MOLSON: In disciplinary cases, where a commission makes certain recommendations, will the officer whose conduct is called into question have the right to know what they are?

Sir S. HOARE: Certainly. In connection with disciplinary enquiries dealing with the services we have in other Clauses safeguarded the position of such officers so that they should know the charges against them, and so on.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: The Secretary of State says that the functions of these commissions are wholly advisory. Suppose there are 100 students who sit for an examination conducted by a Public Service Commission, of which 50 are deemed to be efficient and proper persons, from the point of view of the examination, to be absorbed into the service. Is it still open to the Governor-General to go outside that 50 and choose a number of people whom he knows?

5.54 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I will answer the hon. Member's question in a moment. The hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) asked me about the subordinate ranks in the police. It is intended to exclude them. We think that we have clearly excluded them in an earlier Clause, but we will look into the question to see whether the words should be made a little more explicit.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The Secretary of State said that we could not have two governments in India. Assume that 1,000 people sit for an examination. Ultimately 500 pass a certain given standard. Then the Government actually want to pick 250. They are free to decide which of the 250 they will select. The Public Service Commission act as the first sieve. That does not make them an alternative government. What I was trying to get at was the point put by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) which the Secretary of State did not make clear.

Sir S. HOARE: In theory the local Government could make a change, but, in practice, we make it difficult for them to make a change by the words in this Clause. The alternative would be to give full powers to the Public Service Commissions to insist upon a particular
list of candidates being accepted in all respects. The risk then would be that the Public Service Commissions would be embroiled in questions like the communal question, because a commission might impose a certain percentage of communal appointments which the Government could not accept. I would ask the hon. Member to take it from me that the general opinion in India is definitely in favour of leaving these commissions advisory, giving them as much influence as possible, and leaving the relations to grow up between them and the Government under which their nominees are normally taken.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am obliged to the right hon. 'Gentleman, but I am still unconvinced of the efficacy of the line that he advocates. Let us again suppose that 1,000 people sit for an examination of whom 500 are deemed to be eminently qualified according to the examination test. If the Government want 250 persons, as I understand the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, there is no obligation on them to accept the first 250, but they may even go outside the first 500 who have qualified according to the examination test. I suggest that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman is in the opposite direction because, if we allow people who have not passed the examination to be appointed, they may be nominated or appointed on some communal grounds. So long as appointments are restricted to the results of the examinations the only qualification is an intellectual qualification, but if we give the Government the chance of putting in people on communal grounds, surely the way to do it is the way which the right hon. Gentleman is adopting.

Duchess of ATHOLL: The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that Parliament has obliged the Government of India to lay down certain percentages in recruitment to different communities, but those who are appointed will have to pass a certain standard of examination. I was trying to explain to the Committee the other day that that is what has happened in the Punjab for some years in regard to persons appointed as subordinate judges.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: I wish to put a simple question on the point
put forward by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). If the House or the Secretary of State deemed it desirable that recruitment to the police service mentioned in Clause 233—a Secretary of State's service—should be conducted on the lines that recruitment to the Sudan Civil Service is conducted today, will the Secretary of State be able to enforce that change?

Sir S. HOARE: That question does not come in here at all. This has nothing to do with the Secretary of State's services.

Clause 256 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 257. —(Expenses of Public Service Commissioners.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.3 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Before we part with this Clause, it is as well that we should realise that we are setting up a rather costly and cumbersome form of machinery. These Public Service Commissions may he necessary and desirable in order to get away from the difficulty of appointments made by Ministers, but they are cumbersome and expensive. Not only will there be salaries and allowances for the members of the Commissions, but pensions also will have to be provided. Hon. Members will notice that very severe limitations are imposed on the posts which men may hold after they have ceased to be chairmen of these Commissions. A man who has been chairman of the Federal Public Services Commission may not serve any more in India, and men who have been chairmen of provincial Commissions may only serve in India as chairmen of Central Public Service Commissions. That gives one an idea of the odium that may attach to the chairmanship of these Commissions and of the difficulties attending question's of appointments in India; and obviously if people have to be pensioned off—

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Does not this Clause deal with how the expenses shall be met, and not with what the expenditure is to be?

The CHAIRMAN: That is so.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I will say nothing further than that it is obvious that if a man may not serve any longer in India or if the posts open to him are limited it will add to the number of pensioners, and that the machinery will be costly in that respect.

CLAUSE 258. —(Provisions as to chaplains.)

6.6 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, in page-143, line 24, at the end, to insert:
and for the purposes of the provisions of Chapter II relating to persons who retired before the commencement of Part III of this Act the said establishment shall be. deemed to be an All-India service.
The object of this Amendment is to secure that chaplains who have retired before Part III of the Act comes into operation shall have the necessary protection for their pensions.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Will the same conditions apply to chaplains who may be appointed between now and the appointed day as apply to the case of civil servants?

Mr. BUTLER: This applies in the same way as the provisions which apply to members of the Civil Service which were discussed in this connection.

Mr. JONES: But supposing that a chaplain were appointed next week, are his interests safeguarded in precisely the same way as those of the Civil Service?

Mr. BUTLER: If a chaplain retires before Part III of the Act comes into operation, he is to have the protection provided by this Amendment—but he will have to have retired before Part III comes into operation.

Mr. JONES: But supposing a chaplain were appointed next week and retired before Part III became operative, are his interests safeguarded

Mr. BUTLER: As he would have retired before Part III became operative his interests would, presumably, be safeguarded.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

6.9 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I should like to know what exactly it is that we are doing in this Clause. I have always understood both during our discussions here and at the meetings of the Joint Select Committee that the chaplains with whom we were concerned in this Bill were the chaplains for the Army in India, but after reading this Clause I have a shrewd suspicion that we are discussing chaplains not connected with the armed forces but ministering simply to members of the Civil Service.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: The chaplains with whom we are concerned here are also, to a certain limited extent, to minister to the civil population as well as to the military. The chaplains have a dual purpose—to administer to the needs to a certain extent of the civil population, as agreed to by the Joint Select Committee, and to the military forces.

Mr. JONES: I take the strongest possible objection to our being called upon to make provision for spiritual consolation for civilians. They ought to provide it for themselves, and not look to the State for it. I raise no objection to the provision of any such services for the troops, but I have a strong objection to these ministrations being provided—not at our expense, but at the expense of the Indian people. It is a lot to ask us to swallow—that the Indian people, who do not accept our Christian philosophy, are to bear the burden of chaplains for even the defence forces, but it is an intolerable thing that they should be asked to bear such a burden in the case of civilians dotted all over the country. An isolated -civilian is just as much entitled to these ministrations as are communities of civilians. I do not see why we should provide them for groups of people who ought to bear the cost themselves as a common effort. The individual who is isolated possibly needs spiritual consolation more because of his isolation. I ought to say, in fairness, that I know that the Indian people themselves do not want this point raised. I raise it myself as a citizen of this country, because I believe it is monstrous that we should ask people who do not accept our Christian faith to bear the burden of maintaining these chaplains. If it has to be done, let us do it out of our resources.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not follow the logic of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). He is raising a point of principle about which, admittedly, there is no agitation one way or the other, and he has fairly told us that the Indian representatives do not make any point against this proposal. Therefore, he raises it as a matter of abstract principle, as one of the great and cardinal rules of government, as it were. If we are to deal with matters of principle, logic acquires exceptional importance, much more so than when dealing with matters of practical administration. He did not explain why he has no difficulty in providing for the spiritual needs of the Army in India, and yet is so outraged at similar provision being made to meet the very peculiar circumstances of the scattered official community. I do not see any point of difference in logic between the two. Obviously if it is wrong to ask an Indian to devote any portion of his taxes to the minister of a faith he does not share, the objection applies whether the provision is made for soldiers or for civilians. Why should the civilians be less worthy of attention in this respect than the soldiers?
Peace hath her victories
No less renowned than war.
The official civil population of India are doing work which is just as necessary to the well-being of the Indian people and to the maintenance of good order and good government as are the military, and why it should excite his wrath when the one class are ministered to while he allows provision to be made for the military without censure I cannot understand. It is a point of logic on which I should like him to enlighten us, and to define his view a little more accurately.

Mr. JONES: I appreciate the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's inquiry. As a matter of fact, my colleagues and I on the Joint Select Committee, when we drafted our report, did say that we thought that it would be a generous gesture for this country to undertake to provide spiritual consolation even for the troops, rather than let the cost fall on the shoulders of the Indian people, who do not entertain our Christian philosophy. May I add, in passing, that if I seem illogical to the right hon. Gentleman he hardly did justice to himself. Is he
going to provide spiritual consolation for isolated individuals all over India?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I imagine that the chaplains do minister, as far as they can, to the whole of the white population there, because men who are at outstations come into the larger areas from time to time and there find provision made for their religion—facilities for the performance of marriage and for baptisms. I do not think the fact that some people may have to live for a long time outside an area where a chaplain is stationed shows any flaw in the argument for providing these chaplains. I must point out that the hon. Gentleman has completely changed his argument, though I do not say he has changed his mind. His first argument was based on the principle that he did not object to paying for chaplains for the troops, but objected to paying for those for civilians. The second speech he made was directed equally against the military and the civilians. As far as I could gather, he would free the Indians from any of the charges they have hitherto borne in this respect. If any religious provision were to be made for them it would be a special extra charge voted by this Committee. If that be so, it would be merged in the general question of Anglo-Indian finance.
It was only last year that we voted £1,500,000 a year to India in respect of the training of our troops and for various considerations in the military budget. That is incomparably greater than any of the questions contained in this matter. Looking at the great flow of money to and from India and this country for the discharge and appointment of the various services, there is not the slightest reason why the hon. Gentleman should not, as it were, mentally ear-mark some unspecified portion of that grant to this particular service of a religious character, and thus avoid that outrage to his conscience, or, through his conscience to that of his Indian fellow-subjects about whom he feels so keenly.

6.16 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: The Committee should be grateful for the speech to which we have just listened. It was an admirable speech, and showed up the hypocrisy of the suggestion—[Interruption]— not of the hon. Member's speech—and I feel very strongly about it and about the
motive behind the speech of the hon. Gentleman. It is monstrous that he should come down to this House and, from the Front Opposition Bench, describe as an outrage a provision made in order that both British and Indian servants of the Crown should be provided with spiritual ministrations. To describe that provision as monstrous is an abuse of language. He said: "It is an outrage." That is an abuse of language which has seldom been heard in this House.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I interrupt the Noble Lord?

Earl WINTERTON: Certainly, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a third speech.

Mr. JONES: I did not object to the provision of chaplains, but to the Indians being charged with the expense.

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Gentleman used the words "outrage" or "monstrous."

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: What was monstrous?

Earl WINTERTON: This Clause. But I prefer to deal with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) first, and I will deal afterwards with the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me from below the Gangway as a supporter of the hon. Member for Caerphilly. For the hon. Member for Caerphilly to use a phrase of that kind about the provision of official money for the spiritual ministrations of British and Indian civil servants and soldiers in India is one of the greatest misuses of language that I have ever heard in this House. I hope that the sort of language the official Opposition use about these things will be widely known outside this House. I think there will be great resentment, and I hope there will be great resentment. Close association with Russia has made the Opposition Front Bench have some rather curious views on this matter.

Mr. JONES: May I interrupt again?

Earl WINTERTON: Certainly. Make a fourth speech.

Mr. JONES: I will not allow the Noble Lord to arrogate to himself the right to speak as one who believes more in the Christian religion than I do. I do not
give place to him in that matter. I questioned the rightness of making the Indian people pay for a religion in which they do not believe.

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Gentleman's words are an abuse of language, and I hope they will be widely known.

Mr. JONES: I will tell them myself.

Earl WINTERTON: I am very glad that I have stirred the hon. Gentleman. Now I would like to say a word about the Clause. For generations, ever since the English have been connected with India, money has been provided out of official funds for the spiritual ministrations of troops and civil servants and not one Indian has ever objected. It has been left to the hon. Member for Caerphilly to make this protest against spiritual ministrations. I would remind the hon. Gentleman, who talks as though the Christian religion were an alien religion in India, that it is the third biggest religion in India. There are 6,000,000 Indian Christians. It is not an alien religion at all, and they will not be very grateful to the hon. Member for Caerphilly, this great supporter of the Christian religion, who yields to no one—

Mr. JONES: I said to the Noble Lord—

Earl WINTERTON: They will not be very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is a, scandal that he should make that speech, and I challenge him to have the courage to go into the Lobby and vote against the Clause.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: In view of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and of the Noble Lord, I do not propose to enter into this controversy. The Government attach importance to the Clause. There was an obligation in the old days upon the East India Company to provide chaplains in their ships and in their stations for spiritual ministrations to the official civilians and soldiers in those days. Ever since then, the Ecclesiastical Department has carried out the duties for which it was founded. The Joint Select Committee, with the aid of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), looked very sympathetically into
this matter, and there was on all sides among the Indian delegates, if not agreement, at any rate an understanding that something in the nature of this Clause should be inserted in the Bill. There is a provision which we have already passed which states that the amount of money for the Ecclesiastical Department shall be limited to 42 lakhs of rupees. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to Clause 333, (e), he will find that we have implemented the suggestion of the Joint Select Committee in regard to the limit. They suggested also that encouragement should be given to ecclesiastical services in India to depend more and more upon their own efforts, and less and less upon the Government. I feel certain, now that the hon. Gentleman has heard this explanation as to the manner in which we are carrying out the age-long duty to provide spiritual advice to the troops and to the official civil population, he will see that the Clause is one of the most important in the Bill, and I hope his opposition will cease.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. McKIE: I do not wish to detain the Committee, and to prevent the Committee from coming to a decision, if there is still opposition to the Clause after the spirited rejoinders made to the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) by the Noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), but as this is the first time I have taken part in these discussions, perhaps I may be allowed to raise a point in which, I think, the interests of the Church of Scotland are affected by the Clause. First let me draw attention to Sub-section (3), which reads:
The ministers of the Church of Scotland so appointed chaplains must be ordained and inducted by the Presbytery of Edinburgh according to the forms and solemnities used in the Church of Scotland, and shall be subject to the spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction in all things of the Presbytery of Edinburgh, whose judgments shall be subject to dissent, protest and appeal to the Provincial synod of Lothian and Tweeddale and to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
It is not to the last part of that Subsection that I take exception. I know that the Church of Scotland is not organised in India. I was very surprised to learn, only a few days ago, that the Church of Scotland is not organised in
India, in view of her long and great record in that sub-continent, and I was amazed to find that there is no proper organisation of that church in India. As long as that is so, ministers ministering in India must be subject to some jurisdiction at home in Scotland, and very naturaliy that is provided for by inserting in the Bill:
shall be subject to the spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction in all things of the Presbytery of Edinburgh,
The part of the Sub-section which may arouse considerable anxiety in Scotland is the first part, and the sentence which provides that the ordination of the chaplains must be made by the Presbytery of Edinburgh. I should like the Secretary of State, or perhaps the Attorney-General, who is very familiar with Scottish ecclesiastical matters, to tell me why the Metropolitan Presbytery of Edinburgh is singled out for preferential treatment or for a position of primacy in this matter. Why should the Sub-section not read: "presbytery of Glasgow," or of Aberdeen. or Kirkcudbright, or Dundee—

Mr. CHURCHILL: Or Lossiemouth?

Mr. McKIE: So far as I know there is no ecclesiastical district designated Lossiemouth. I should he very sorry if any individual presbytery were specified in the Clause, because it is contrary to the spirit of the Presbyterian Church to single out any one authority as being the sole channel through which the spiritual grace in orders can flow. The Presbyterian system is one of pure republicanism—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] —Yes, as that word is rightly understood. It maintains that this grace of orders can be imparted by every individual presbyter, minister or priest, and it does seem a little invidious to single out one group of ministers and to say that chaplains who are ministering in the Province of Madras or the Province of Bombay as it applies to the Province of Bengal, shall be required to be ordained by this one group of ministers representing the Scottish metropolis. May I say, in passing, that I have the greatest respect for that group, as I have for anyone coming from Edinburgh, even for representatives of Edinburgh in this House—

Duchess of ATHOLL: Why "even"?

Mr. McKIE: The Noble Lady is not concerned with Edinburgh. I think she
will share my apprehension on this point. The Sub-section gives direct primacy in this matter to the Presbytery of Edinburgh. If hon. Members will allow me, I will illustrate what this means. It is as though we were to single out one diocese in the Church of England and say that chaplains in India shall in future be ordained in Canterbury, or Winchester or Carlisle. I think that is a position which even the most devout upholder of the doctrine of apostolic succession would not for one moment sanction. There are strong sentimental reasons, but there may be also anxiety in Scotland on this matter. Young people entering the priesthood and the ministry have an attachment to a presbytery in Scotland, just as young people entering the Church of England ministry may have an attachment to particular dioceses. It is for those reasons that I feel bound to raise my voice.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the hon. Gentleman permit me to interrupt? I hope that he is not going to conclude without suggesting an Amendment which will give effect to his wishes.

Mr. McKIE: Certainly. I am putting it before the Committee on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I was going to point out that the Secretary of State and those associated with him in carrying this Bill through the Committee might, between now and the Report stage, inquire into this matter with a view to leaving out the words: "by the Presbytery of Edinburgh" in order to permit anybody coming from any presbytery in Scotland to take office in India under the Sub-section.

6.30 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I must not be drawn by the eloquence of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) into any kind of controversy about the internal organisation or spiritual foundations of the Presbyterian Church, but let me assure him and the Committee that these sections are really historical sections, which have been in existence, so far as I know, for generations. All that we are doing is repeating them, and repeating them, so I understand, at the wish of the authorities in Scotland. At one time, in my anxiety to diminish the length of the Bill, I was sorely tempted to leave them out. I felt that, if I had left thorn out, perhaps
no great change would have taken place. But at once it was pointed out to me that the whole Presbyterian organisation in Scotland, including, I feel sure, my hon. Friend, would have been on my back, and, being a cautious and timid person, I thought it was better to avoid, if I could, any opposition, for I already had a good deal upon my shoulders. On that account I have inserted in the Bill these historical clauses, which, so far as I know, have been in operation for generations past. That being so, I hope that my hon. Friend and the Committee will accept this Clause.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) should be the last to object to my hon. Friend's suggestion, because, so far as I remember, he took part in the historic discussions connected with the Welsh Church and the subject of dis-establishment—

Mr. CHURCHILL: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have not objected to it at all. I was interested in the statement that was made.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman was objecting to the suggestion of my hon. Friend, and I am trying to show how illogical the right hon. Gentleman is. I think I remember his defending the Welsh Disestablishment Bill and making even more emphatic speeches than those he has made during these discussions.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I never made any

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government, and voted for the Bill. 'The speech that the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has made to-night was exactly the sort of speech that was made against Mr. Asquith, and against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and others. We were told that we were going to pull down the temples of religion, that we were irreligious, that all those who voted for the Bill were people who had no sort of faith at all, and that we were going to hand over Wales to sheer heathenism—all because we said that the Welsh people ought not to have imposed upon
them an establishment in which they did not believe. It has been said to-night that no Indian has objected to this Clause. I know as many Indians as anyone who has not visited India, and I have discussed this matter with them many a time. Most, if not all, of those with whom I have come in contact think it is rather invidious to ask Hindus and Moslems and Brahmins and Buddhists to pay for the teaching of our religion.
The Noble Lord said he hoped that our opinion and our action in regard to this matter would be known outside. What is it that we are saying? No amount of twisting our language can get away from it. All that we are saying is that if ministers of the Gospel—Presbyterian, Church of England, Roman Catholic, Salvation Army, Baptist, Wesleyan—go to India to teach our religion, we, who want our religion taught, should pay for it. I myself subscribe regularly to one or two missions in India, and am glad that I have a few shillings to enable me to do that; and to say that, because I am against this proposal, I do not want religion taught either to the troops or to the Indians themselves or to anyone else, is a blatant outrage and a misuse of language on The part of the Noble Lord. When we go into the Lobby we shall be voting for exactly the same principle that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, when he was a member of the Liberal Government, stood up for—that those who want a certain religion taught should pay for it, and should not impose the payment on people who disagree with them.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I share the right hon. Gentleman's regret that the Noble Lord has not been in his place for some little time, because, owing to his departure from the Chamber, I, apparently have to bear the brunt of the castigation which the right hon. Gentleman felt it his duty to deliver. I shall not fail to mention to the Noble Lord, when I see him, what has occurred, and will show him my wounds. For my part, I have certainly not used any strong language at all on this point. I merely examined the logic which was behind the principle put forward by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), and so effective was my criticism
on that point that he completely altered his ground. Whereas he only objected to civilians before, he broadened the position, and objected to the ministrations whether they were for the military or for the civilians.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I did not wish to pursue my argument in my second intervention too far, as I am one of those who believe that two speeches on the same Amendment are rather more than enough.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I certainly should not have intervened but for the point which was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. He has, I think, treated me with less than his usual justice by making me the whipping boy for the Noble Lord, whose attitude upon this Bill I have always regarded as most deplorable, and whom I should have been very glad to see chastened and castigated in this House by the right hon. Gentleman, had he been in his place. At any time when the right hon. Gentleman finds himself in the humour to assail the Noble Lord, I hope he will be good enough to let me know, in order that I may be there to see.

Mr. LANSBURY: If I have misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman, I am very sorry, but he did take up this matter from the point of view of principle, and that is why I wanted to remind him that he was one of the champions of the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. This matter is on all fours with that Measure, and my hon. Friend, being a Welshman, naturally wants to put that principle into practice.

6.39 p.m.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: I should like to ask what it is that we are dividing about I distinctly understood from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) that he intended to divide because he felt that this was expenditure which was not incurred for the troops; and, as 90 per cent. of the expenditure is incurred for the troops, I feel bound to ask him what he is dividing about. I certainly understood from him that he did not object to the appointment of chaplains.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 36.

Division No. 146.]
AYES.
[6.41 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cazalet, Capt. V.A. (Chippenham)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh
Fox, Sir Gifford


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian


Albery, Irving James
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Clarke, Frank
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Clarry, Reginald George
Goff, Sir Park


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Granville, Edgar


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cochrane, Commander Hon A. D.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Assheton, Ralph
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)


Atholl, Duchess of
Cook, Thomas A.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cooke, Douglas
Griffith. F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsmith, C.)
Copeland, Ida
Grimston, R. V.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hacking, Rt. Hon Douglas H.


Bernays, Robert
Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd)


Blindell, James
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bossom, A. C.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Harris, Sir Percy


Boulton, W. W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hartington, Marquess of


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hartland, George A.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Cross, R. H.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Crossley, A. C.
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel(Totnes)


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Braithwalte, J. G.(Hillsborough)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Denman, Hon. R D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Dickle, John P.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Brocklebank, C. E. R,
Duckworth, George A. V.
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Burghley, Lord
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Holdsworth, Herbert


Butler, Richard Austen
Eimley, Viscount
Hornby, Frank


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Cayzer, Sir Charles(Chester, City)
Evans, Capt. Arthur(Cardiff, S.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Iveagh, Countess of


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Jamieson, Douglas
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Somerville. Annesley A. (Windsor)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Nunn, William
Soper, Richard


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Orr E wing, I. L.
Spens, William Patrick


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Fylde)


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles(Montrose)
Patrick, Colin M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Penny, Sir George
Stevenson, James


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Knight, Holford
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Strauss, Edward A.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Potter, John
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Templeton, William P.


Levy, Thomas
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Lewis, Oswald
Ramsay, T. B. W.(Western Isles)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Liddall. Walter S.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Rankin, Robert
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R.L.


Little, Graham-,Sir Ernest
Rea, Walter Russell
Wallace, Captain D. E.(Hornsey)


Loftus, Pierce C.
Reed, Arthur C.(Exeter)
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Mabane, William
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Remer, John R.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Rickards, George William
Warrender, Sir Victor A G.


McKie, John Hamilton
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Robinson, John Roland
Wayland, Sir William A.


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Rothschild, James A. de
Wells, Sidney Richard


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col, Sir M.
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter
White, Henry Graham


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Herbert G (Croydon, S.)


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon N.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Meller, Sir Richard James
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Salt, Edward W.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Mitchell, Harold P. (Bi'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Samuel, Rt. Hon Sir H. (Darwen)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard



Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Savery, Samuel Servington
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Sir Walter Womersley and


Moreing, Adrian C.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Dr. Morris-Jones.


Morrison, William Shepherd
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.



NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Banfield, John William
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major James


Cleary, J. J.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cove, William G.
John, William
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
West, F. R.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon George
Wilmot, John


Davies, Stephen Owen
Lawson, John James



Dobble, William
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.


Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 259—(Indemnity for past acts.)

6.50 p.m.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: I beg to move, in page 145, line 10, at the end, to add:
(4) The provisions of this section shall apply (save as hereinafter provided) to proceedings, civil or criminal, against any person in respect of any act done or purporting to be done by him in the execution of his duty as a servant of the Crown in India after the relevant date.
Provided—
(a) that such person is a person who may not he dismissed from the service of His Majesty except by the Secretary of State or the Governor-General or the Governor; and
(b) that any consent required to be given by the Governor-General or the Governor, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) of this section shall in any case to which this sub-section applies be given by the Governor-General in the exercise of his individual judgment and after consultation with the Advocate-General or be given, as the case may be, by the Governor in the exercise of his individual judgment and after consultation with the Advocate-General for the Province.
The Clause as it stands give a certain measure of protection to officials and civil servants in India on account of acts committed before the relevant date, that is to say, before the commencement of Part III, or tike Federation as the case
may be. But there is no protection for acts committed after that date. I understand that the Services of India press very strongly for some measure of protection. I think that it would be understood that, if, as the Clause acknowledges, protection is necessary on account of acts committed previous to the relevant date, the case for protection for acts committed subsequent to that date must be at least as strong. The Services are not pressing for immunity from judicial proceedings, or for a special tribunal to try their cases. They simply ask that before any case goes to a judicial court the Government should satisfy itself that it has a prima facie case for such proceedings. It is obvious that it will be in the power of ill-willed people to start vexatious proceedings in order to harass public servants who have carried out certain actions really on behalf of the Government. It is only just that the Government should stand by and defend these people for actions which they have taken on behalf of the Government in all good will.

6.53 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think it may be convenient if I rise at once to give the Committee our views on this point. The Clause to which the Amendment is moved deals with past acts. It does not take the exact form of an indemnity, but it is an indemnity of a kind, and, as the Committee will see, the marginal note is: "Indemnity for past acts." As far as the future is concerned, obviously it would not be right to give what would appear to be in any sense an indemnity in advance. There are no doubt special circumstances which make it desirable to have something in the nature of an indemnity in this Bill. In regard to the future, as I have indicated, obviously it would be very undesirable, and indeed wrong, to appear to be casting a cloak in advance irrespective of the type of charge that might be made or the liability or claim that might be made. In considering the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend it is important to draw a distinction between criminal proceedings and civil proceedings. They may stand on widely differing bases. As far as criminal proceedings are concerned, as my hon. and gallant Friend no doubt knows, though it may not be known by all Members of the Committee, the existing
safeguard, which, I think, covers exactly the same classes of officers as those covered by the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend, is laid down in Section 197 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides broadly as follows, namely, that
When any person who is a judge or magistrate or public servant not removable except by or with the sanction of the local government or some higher authority is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties, no court shall take cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the local government.
That is in the existing law, and it has been thought—and I think it will be agreed by those who have experience of this matter—necessary to have some such provision as that to prevent, especially magistrates and officials, from being harassed by vexatious criminal proceedings. Under the system which has grown up in India under our rule it is, I think, even easier to go into a court and get a summons or a criminal plaint than it is in this country. It is a very simple procedure and, therefore, unless you have some such protection, having regard to the circumstances which are bound to exist in a large continent such as India, if you had not some safeguard, you might not infrequently find officials harassed by vexatious criminal proceedings. If Members of the Committee will look at page 1474 of the Order Paper they will see that my right hon. Friend has put down a draft new Clause, which provides that:
No Bill or Amendment to abolish or restrict the protection afforded"—
by the Section to which I have just referred—
shall be introduced …without the previous sanction of the Governor-General
or the Governor as the case may be. That, of course, will preserve, subject to that sanction, the existing Clause. Under our present administration, this not being a reserved subject, a decision under that Clause as to whether the proceedings should go forward and whether the courts should take cognisance of a criminal complaint against an official rests with the official Government. Under the Bill this decision would be in the hands of ministers alone. It is very important in considering this matter—and I would emphasise this point to the Committee—that the question of some
safeguard such as this—and the intention behind the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend—is really more necessary and desirable for the protection of the Indian members of the Civil Service than the English members. Let us get right away from any idea that we are here considering some hedge we want to put round people from these islands. After all, the English members of the Civil Service have their own special protection and safeguards. There are a very large number of Indians who at present are in high and responsible positions in the Indian Civil Service whom it is necessary to consider in relation to this matter.
In considering this subject one has to bear two things in mind on one side or the other. It is most undesirable and entirely against the best interests of the services of India, or officials in any country where British ideas prevail, that you should give, or tend to give, the impression that they are hedged off and free to do as they like, and that no one can get at them. On the other hand, it is equally necessary, particularly in a country like India, that where there is a danger of their being harassed by vexatious or maliciously-motived proceedings, they should be given fair and proper protection. After all, it not only causes mental anxiety, and so on, to a magistrate, but it is bad for the administration of law and justice if a magistrate, because some person thinks he has a grievance, should be put into the dock and have to justify his action. My right hon. Friend therefore proposes to take the course which I have indicated, and further, to provide that in these cases the head of the Government, the Governor-General or the Governor, as the case may be, shall have the last word and that it shall be in his individual judgment.
We hope, and indeed we anticipate, that Ministers will be as keen as we are in this House to see that the officials who are carrying out their policy, as it will be, shall be properly backed up and protected. We do not anticipate either on this or on the next item which I shall deal with any division of opinion. But in order to reassure those officials, Indians just as much as British, who are anxious that there shall be no doubt that there is proper protection against
vexatious and unjustifiable criminal proceedings, we propose to give the Governor or the Governor-General the last word. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend may think that that is a satisfactory way of dealing with criminal proceedings.

Sir A. KNOX: Am I to understand that this covers future Acts as well as past Acts?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am dealing entirely with future Acts. The Clause deals with the past, but my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment deals with the future, and I am dealing solely with what we think to be the reasonable and proper procedure for the future.
I come now to the question of civil proceedings. The Clause deals with what is past, and therefore with matters which are, at any rate, in people's minds. The Clause provides that in cases of civil proceedings, cases shall not be instituted except by consent. That is not an existing safeguard. At present there is nothing to prevent a person issuing a writ, or whatever may be the proper technical term in India, against an official for damages for some civil wrong which he alleges has been committed. I do not think it would be right as a permanent part of the Constitution, as it were, to impose a barrier, even though it be a discretionary barrier, between a member of the public and the official whom he is saying has invaded his private rights. After all, civil actions would extend to such cases as motor accidents; and they would extend no doubt to unjustified assaults. I suppose it might be possible to conceive a libel in which words might have been written or uttered in the course of carrying out official duties.
It is a great principle, and we do not wish to invade it, that if an ordinary member of the public has a wrong committed against him, be it by an official or a non-official person, he has the right to issue his writ and claim his redress in the courts. We think it would be undesirable to put up, or even to attempt to put up, as a permanent part of this constitution, a barrier in cases where officials are concerned. But it seems to us that what really affects an official who has a civil claim made against him is the question of costs and the question of any
damages that he may have to pay. An official in India, as in this country, is in rather a special position in that in cases of civil wrongs, or torts, the Crown, who is the employer if I may use the analogy, cannot be sued.
Perhaps I may explain the matter in a little more detail. Suppose that you are knocked down by Messrs. Selfridge's van. You would then sue Messrs. Selfridge, the employer, and get your money if there had been negligence. But if on the other hand you are knocked down by an Army lorry you cannot sue the Crown; you have to sue the driver of the lorry.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: You sue the Army Council, surely?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No, you sue the driver of the lorry. But, of course, the Army Council and the War Office stand behind the man and pay his costs—unless he has been off on a jaunt of his own or has been guilty of some wilful misconduct—and they pay the damages. That is right, I think, because if you had not this technical rule that the Crown could not be sued, proceedings would be against the principal, and not against the individual. That does produce rather a special situation so far as officials are concened. It is right, therefore, that in all proper cases where individuals are sued after having had the misfortune to have injured people, or whatever the case may be, in the carrying out of their duties that their employer, in this case the Government, should stand behind them in respect of costs or of damages. Here again, we do not anticipate that Ministers will not treat such cases as the official Governments have done in India in the past, and as Government Departments do here. But bearing in mind the quite reasonable apprehensions in these matters of civil servants, and in particular of the Indian members of the Civil Service, my right hon. Friend prefers here again to give the Governor-General or the Governor the last word where it is a question as to whether they should stand behind the official for any costs or damages. That will in the last resort be settled by the Governor-General or the Governor in his individual judgment. I think that covers the points that have been raised, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend may
feel that in making these suggestions for the future we are putting forward what is best and fairest both in the interests of the public and in the interests of the officials, and meeting what is a very real problem.

7.8 p.m.

Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: I do not entirely follow the Solicitor-General with regard to the reserved protection under the existing law. I did not quite follow it as regards the civil suits and civil actions because at the moment I cannot recollect what the form of protection was under Section 80 of the Civil—

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is not really a very substantial matter, but the main point under Section 80 is that two months' notice is to be given before you can issue your writ. I did not go specifically into that, and perhaps I should have done so. That is the main protection, and that provision is covered by the new Clause.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that in this country the subject cannot bring a charge against the Crown as such. Do I understand that the effect of the Clause to be this: that if a subject desires to bring a claim for damages, say against some department of the Federal Government, Sub-section (1) means that such a claim cannot be advanced in the courts unless there is prior sanction of the Governor-General? If so, does not that mean that the Crown, or o the Governor-General, has to determine whether a case shall lie against itself in the courts?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: This Clause deals only with proceedings against persons and that word does not include the Provincial Government or the Federation. The claim which the hon. Gentleman has in mind would be one against the Government or the Federation and would be a claim, almost certainly, arising out of breach of contract, or something of that kind. That is untouched by this Clause, which deals only with claims against individuals. You can, both here and in India, bring a claim against the Crown if your claim arises out of a contract. This Clause
deals with a claim which does not concern a contract, but a tort against an individual, and the most obvious case being perhaps carelessness in the driving of a Government lorry.

Sir A. KNOX: In view of the explanation of the hon. and learned Member, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.13 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I do not know whether I shall be in order but I should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if he would substitute the words "in his discretion" for "in his individual judgment," in the proposal which he is putting to the Committee.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid not. I think it would be wrong by putting in the words, "in his discretion" to short circuit the ministers, if I may so express it, and not to give every opportunity to them of backing up their officials as we believe they will and ought to back them up. It seems to us a case where it would be wholly wrong to appear to anticipate that ministers will not take the right action. Also, we think it might tend to mitigate the good feeling between ministers and their officials who will be carrying out their policy.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Of course, I recognise that a case might arise which would have nothing to do with the minister—something entirely outside anything with which he had to do. I quite see the hon. and learned Gentleman's point that the minister might wish to be given a chance of standing up for an official. Therefore, I will not press the point.

CLAUSE 260.—(Exemption of pensions from Indian taxation.)

7.15 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 145, line 25, after "shall," to insert:
if the person to whom the pension is payable is residing permanently outside India be paid on behalf of the Federation or
the Province, as the case may be, by, or in accordance with arrangements made with, the Secretary of State, and.
This Clause deals with the exemption of pensions from Indian taxation. The words which my right hon. Friend proposes to insert are to meet a point which the Services have raised, that recognition ought to be given somewhere in the Bill of the fact that the Secretary of State is responsible for the issue of pensions in this country. The words
or in accordance with arrangements made with, the Secretary of State,
refer to civil pensions which are issuable to persons and have been issuable for some years by the High Commissioner. The Amendment does not provide any additional safeguards—the safeguards are really contained in the Clause—but it does make clear what is the existing practice.

7.16 p.m.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I ought to point out to the Committee that there is an Amendment on the Order Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and other hon. Members. If the next Amendment standing in the name of the Secretary of State is carried, it is obvious that the hon. Member's Amendment will not read. Therefore, if he desires to move his Amendment he will have to move it as an Amendment to the Amendment now before the Committee.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is there any reason why the words
in accordance with the arrangements made by the Secretary of State
cannot be inserted? Will my right hon. Friend consider that slight alteration?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I ask whether it would be convenient to accept as an Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, after the word "India," in the second line of the Amendment, to insert the words "but not in any foreign country." That would cover the point of my hon. Friend's Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am inclined to think that that is the only possible method by which the, hon. Member's point can be raised, and I should be prepared to accept the Amendment in that form.

7.18 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I am very glad that my Amendment has been moved, not that it adds anything to what was always our desire and intention, but it does go some way to remove certain anxieties felt in the Services. It makes it clear that the Secretary of State, acting as the agent of the Imperial Parliament, has the responsibility for seeing that the money is found from the Indian revenues to meet these pensions. When the words of my Amendment are read in connection with the Amendment that I moved in Clause 153, I think it will be seen that there is now no cause for the anxieties that may have been felt in the past. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) asks why we use the words "with the Secretary of State." The answer is that certain of these pensions are paid by the High Commissioner and not direct by the Secretary of State. It is contemplated that the Secretary of State shall make arrangements for the payment of these pensions. The word "with" expresses the relations between the Secretary of State and the High Commissioner and does not in any way detract from the safeguard of the Clause.

Duchess of ATHOLL: May we understand that the Secretary of State will be responsible for seeing that these moneys are allocated from the Indian revenues?

Sir S. HOARE: I have just said so.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "India," to insert the words in line 2, "but not in any foreign country."
Hon. Members will see what those words convey. We arc raising a fairly important point, but I want to make it clear that nothing I say must be taken as an attack upon any person who has served in any capacity whatever in India. I have made it my business to find out how many persons are receiving pensions for services in India. The figure is literally colossal. There are pensions payable in one category alone to 3,917 military officers, 603 Indian medical officers and 151 officers of the Indian Royal Marine, making a total of 4,671 who receive annually over £2,000,000 in pensions from the Indian revenues.

Mr. EMMOTT: They have been well earned.

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Member says they have been well earned. I can see from these figures one reason why John Bull is not willing to leave India.

Sir H. CROFT: I wish you were right.

Mr. DAVIES: I never interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Sir H. CROFT: I am sorry.

Mr. DAVIES: I always listen to his speeches until I get tired of them and then walk out. Let me deal with another category of people who draw pensions for service in India. There are 789 pensioners from the Indian Civil Service, 50 ex-judges of the High Court, 75 members of the pilot service, and two bishops. Then there are uncovenanted services pensions. I have some recollection of that word "uncovenanted" in connection with unemployment insurance. There are 2,862 of these who receive pensions for uncovenanted services. I do not think that there is a woman included in these figures. These pensioners total 3,778, and the amount payable for the year ending 31st March, 1934, was £1,818,000. Then there were 158 ecclesiastical gentlemen who received £70,000 per annum. Unless my arithmetic is at fault that gives £450 per annum each. I am under the impression that a number of these ecclesiastical gentlemen are now employed elsewhere drawing salaries as vicars, priests and curates, all over this country.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Why not?

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Member will find out "why not," before I go much further.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is rather long in getting to the point of his Amendment.

Mr. DAVIES: I should have come to the point sooner had it not been for the interruptions. I find that the total pensions payable from Indian revenues to persons who have served in the Indian services and who were bred and born in this country amount to £4,000,000 per annum. I want now to raise the real point regarding the taxation of these pensions at the source. I understand that these pensions are not taxable in
India. Indeed, some of them are not taxable anywhere. We may test the imperialism of people who believe in the British Empire by pressing our Amendment to the vote. It seems to us anomalous that persons who have served the British Empire in India in the various services are now drawing pensions from the revenues of India and, so we are told on fairly good authority, are living permanently on their pensions in parts of the world where their pensions are not taxable. We think that that anomaly ought to be removed and that the Government ought to insert in the Bill some provision so that these persons shall not be free from the payment of taxation in respect of their pensions.
I am very much interested in this subject because I have been in Parliament long enough to remember some of our social insurance schemes being passed. Whenever we have discussed widows' pensions, old age pensions, workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance benefit or health insurance benefit, we have found that, in spite of the fact that all the people concerned have contributed towards these benefits, not a single workman or his widow, unless I am mistaken, can draw any one of these benefits unless they live within the confines of these islands. [Interruption.] You cannot draw benefit from some of our social insurance schemes unless you reside within these shores, and in some cases within the Empire. It is unfair to those civil servants who have served in India and in the majority of cases have come back home, and whose pensions consequently are taxable in this country in the ordinary way, that there should be other pensioners living abroad and escaping taxation. I have tried to find out from the Secretary of State how many Indian pensioners live outside the British Empire, but I have been told that the information is not available. It is true that a large number of people who are drawing handsome pensions are following other occupations and drawing salaries—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question cannot possibly arise on the hon. Member's Amendment.

Mr. DAVIES: I will therefore ask the Minister to be good enough to implement the suggestion contained in the Amendment
so that if Indian pensioners are not to be taxed in future—they have not been taxed in the past—they shall not be immune from taxation simply because they care to live in countries outside the British Empire. That is the case we put forward, and I think it is a reasonable case. Some are living in the Channel Islands, some in Mediterranean ports and some in other countries where taxation is much lower than it is here. Some of them may be employed by the Russian Government or in Abyssinia or Afghanistan, and receiving another salary. In equity there is something wrong in the present state of the law whereby a pensioner can deliberately avoid the payment of income tax. It is essential to the etiquette of superannuation allowances and pensions in any country that this policy should prevail. It is the only decent thing for a person who is receiving superannuation allowance or a pension to spend the money he receives in that way in the country where it has been earned.

7.31 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I hope that the hon. Member will not press the Amendment or, if he does, that the Committee will reject it. Pensions of this kind have always been paid free of Indian income tax and this has been taken into account as one of the conditions of the service. For generations past this has been one of the accepted conditions of the Indian Civil Service. I will not follow the hon. Member in his general disquisition about pensions but let me say that I cannot for a moment accept the suggestion underlying part of his speech, that these pensions were either not earned or if they were earned ought to be paid out of revenues other than Indian revenues.

Mr. DAVIES: I never said that.

Sir S. HOARE: That was the general conclusion I drew from his speech, but 1 am glad if I misunderstood his argument. I did not quite follow the point of the long list of figures he read to the Committee. The only question is whether tax free pensions should be restricted to pensioners who are living in this country or in the Empire. In actual practice it is very difficult to draw a distinction and really it is not worth while. I imagine that there are very few pensioners living in foreign countries, and it would take
a great deal of trouble and invidious investigations to find out where everybody was living. I can assure the Committee that there are very few exceptions of this kind, so rare that it is not worth the while of the India Office or of the Government of India to make meticulous investigation of this kind. That being so it is much better to go on with the present practice and not trouble about the exceptions which, if they exist, are on such a small scale that we need not take them into account.

7.33 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: Let me thank the Secretary of State for the explanation he gave to my question —

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we had better dispose of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Sir H. CROFT: I just said that in order to save the time of the Committee. I should like to ask the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who has just made an eloquent speech, whether he appreciates the fact that it really would be a great hardship to single out a few of these Indian pensioners in the manner he suggests. He has made a calculation of the number of these pensioners, and it was interesting to find the extraordinary small number of pensioners of the Government of a country so large as India, an administration covering one-fifth of the human race. We are grateful to him for having brought the facts before us. I beg him not to go into the Lobby on the Amendment. It seems to me that it would be casting A special kind of slur on very few people. Those who know the people who have retired from the Indian Civil Service realise that there are a certain number who are absolutely broken in health after a long service in India, not only the men but the women as well, who can only keep alive by going to A sunny climate. I hope he will not divide the Committee on the Amendment. It would be very hurtful to a few pensioners who in these circumstances have endeavoured to find a refuge in some climate more like that in which they have lived so long, and whose health could not stand a rigorous climate.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I understand that those who live in the United Kingdom
pay Income Tax on these pensions, and therefore it would not be equitable or fair to tax them in India. The whole point of the Amendment is that we do not want people to get an unfair advantage by drawing a pension and then live outside the Empire in order to dodge taxation. That is the whole point. If we can be convinced that the numbers involved are very small, it would help us in arriving at a decision. We do not want to impose hardship on any person who has become broken in health because of service in India or anywhere else, and, if it is necessary for them to live abroad, we are as willing as anyone else to let them live there and say nothing about it, taxation free. But there are selfish people who take their money abroad, people from this country, in order to escape Income Tax and Death Duty. They are the people we want to stop. If the Secretary of State can tell us that the number is small, I have no doubt that my hon. Friends would consider the matter.

7.36 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: To obtain an accurate answer would mean the circularising of these thousands of individuals, and that really seems to me to be out of the question. But I have satisfied myself that the number really is insignificant, so insignificant that it does not seem to me to necessitate any differential action. If the right hon. Gentleman will take it from me that the number is insignificant, I feel sure that that is the case.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In view of the fact that we have been able to ventilate the point, and in view of the answer of the Secretary of State and the eloquent plea of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted.

Further Amendment made:

In page 145, line 27, leave out from "Legislature," to the end of Clause. —[Sir S. Hoare.]

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

7.40 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: In regard to the question of pensions, I should like to assure the Committee that there is more in the position I want to put before them than perhaps they may suppose. The matter was discussed on the Joint Select Committee, and the point of view was received sympathetically by several members of the Joint Select Committee who were not of my party. The Indian delegation put forward the idea that pensions should be subject to an Indian tax. That does not mean that civil servants coming back to England and living in this country should pay a double tax because under the double income tax arrangement they pay the income tax of the country in which they live. They said:
We see no justification for the proposal to exempt from income tax the pensions of retired officers of the All-India Services. Any such exemption would not benefit the retired officials resident in Great Britain or Northern Ireland who are subject to the British income tax and who would come within the scope of the double income tax arrangements. Whether India levied an income tax on pensions or not they would continue to pay income tax at the British rate. The only persons who would be protected are the retired officials who have settled in foreign countries in order to evade the British income tax. We do not think that these officers deserve the sympathy of Parliament or that any special constitutional provision should be made for their benefit. The question is not, in fact, connected with service rights or privileges, for retired British officials in India are subject to Indian income tax. The matter is one for adjustment between the British Treasury and the Indian Government, if the latter decided to remove the present exemption. It is possible that, owing to the fact that under the Indian income tax provisions no exemptions are given for families, in a few cases the British rate might be lower than the Indian rate of income tax and that a few retired officials in Great Britain and Northern Ireland would, therefore, become subject to a higher rate of tax. To avoid any hardship in this comparatively small number of cases we would have no objection to any arrangements under which retired officials in Great Britain and Northern Ireland would continue to pay income tax at the same rate as at present.
The Secretary of State has said that it is difficult to find out which of these particular individuals were living abroad, but, if the whole of the income tax were levied at the source in India, they would pay the tax. If they live in France or the Channel Islands, they do not pay. I sympathise very much with
the case of pensioners mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), those people who are broken in health and have to seek foreign climates which suit them. I sympathise very much with them. I understand their case. But that is not any reason why they should be exempt from income tax. After all, there are people who live in the Channel Islands in order to escape income tax. On the other hand, there are many Indian civil servants broken in health who live in England and have to pay income tax here. The proposal put forward by the Indian delegation has reason behind it. Though I do not intend to press the matter to a Division, it is only right that their point of view should be stated.

7.46 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: It is a misapprehension to suppose that people can go to the South of France and live cheaply. Every one is beginning to learn that it is very much more expensive to live there at the present time. People are finding out that it is much better to sojourn in Bournemouth. Let me mention one point in regard to the general principle of this Clause. The Secretary of State has endeavoured to meet the case of pensioners up to a point, but I once more ask what is his intention in the case of default—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise on /his Clause, which deals merely with exemption from taxation. The hon. and gallant Member cannot now go into the whole question of default.

Duchess of ATHOLL: With all respect, the Secretary of State was allowed to make a very interesting and important announcement as to the responsibility for seeing that the money was collected.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood the Secretary of State to make a statement about how the money should be used to meet the pensions. We cannot go back on the discussion we have already had as to how the money is to be collected in the first instance.

Sir H. CROFT: The Amendment of the Secretary of State begins with the words
"If the person to whom the pension is payable." Surely one must know where the money is coming from? I hope we shall be able to share my right hon. Friend's optimism that there will be no default, but this is perhaps one of the last occasions on which we can ask him what steps he proposes to take in case of default.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That point cannot arise on this Clause. We cannot go into the question of what may happen if the money is not forthcoming.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I would like to raise a question of interpretation. This taxation is not to apply to persons "residing permanently outside India." I want to be certain what is the meaning of the words "residing permanently outside." I remember that seven or eight years ago a Bill was introduced into this House to enable persons serving in India who were treated as being domiciled in this country, to approach the courts in India in respect of divorce. This question of domicile is always a difficult and complicated one, and "resident in" does not necessarily bring in that mysterious thing known as domicile. I want to know what "residing permanently" means. Suppose that someone is in the habit of visiting India, someone who served there visits relatives there. A friend of mine who is a retired Indian General officer was a colleague of mine in connection with a certain job. He was about 77 years of age and did not enjoy very good health. He used to live in Italy during the winter, and as he had to go there anyhow 'he decided to reside there for six months and one day in the year, because that had the beneficial reaction to which the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) referred. But what does "residing permanently outside" mean?

Sir S. HOARE: There has never been any difficulty about these words. They have been in operation for years, as far as Indian pensions are concerned. I understand that six months is the test applied. The expression is quite clearly understood.

CLAUSE 261.—(Provision as to family pension funds.)

7.53 p.m.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas In skip): I beg to move, in page 146, line 17, at the end, to insert:
Before recommending His Majesty to make any Order in Council under this subsection the Secretary of State shall consider any representations made to him by any subscriber to or beneficiary under the said funds or either of them, or by any persons appearing to him to represent any body of those subscribers or beneficiaries.
This Amendment is designed to allay any fears that may have been entertained that the Order in Council would be made without any representations being first received.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: I beg to move, in page 146, to leave out lines 32 to 34.
Provided that His Majesty in Council may, if it appears to him necessary so to do, extend the said period of three years.
That period is the period in which the money subscribed both by the military and the civil people is to be kept in India. There is a real feeling of alarm on the matter. These are funds subscribed by the serving officers themselves, during their life-time service in India. When they retire they are entitled, or in the event of their death the widows or beneficiaries are entitled, to that money. It is very urgently desired that there should be some safeguard whereby these funds cannot be touched. We do not even know whether the funds are in existence, and we shall be glad if the Secretary of State will say whether there is a full fund capable of paying the whole of the money subscribed.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That point should be raised on the Question," That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," and not on this Amendment, which deals merely with the question whether the period shall or shall not be extended three years by an Order-in-Council.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: Perhaps I went rather beyond the Amendment. The point of the Amendment is to prevent the fund from being kept in India beyond three years, and I will try to show why that would be a real danger. It would be possible, if some application were made, for His Majesty in Council to issue an order that the fund should remain in
India for three years, five years or for an indefinite period. We would like some assurance that the funds are adequately protected if they remain in India over the three years. Unless we can have some such assurance as that I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State will accept the Amendment. It is a very simple Amendment and can do no harm. Three years is a very long period.

7.56 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: There is no difference of opinion between my hon. and gallant Friend and myself in this matter. I am as anxious as he is to see this fund brought over here at the earliest possible moment, supposing that the subscribers and beneficiaries desire it. I assume that anyhow some of them will desire it. If that be the case, he can rely on the Government of India and the India Office funding this sum in Great Britain at the earliest possible moment. From the financial point of view, there is a certain gain for the Government of India in having the fund sent over to Great Britain. At present the fund forms part of the general funds of the Government of India, and a comparatively high rate of interest is paid on it. If the fund were transferred to Great Britain the Government of India would be dispensed from paying what is a fairly high rate of interest upon the fund, and the fund would then have to be invested in gilt-edged securities in Great Britain. My hon. and gallant Friend will therefore see that there is no reason why the Government of India should not expedite the transfer of this fund.
We have introduced into the proposal a certain element of precaution for this reason: The fund amounts to about £12,000,000 sterling. So far as we can see now there should be no reason whatever why we should not set up this fund in Great Britain within the three years. However, in dealing with a sum as big as £12,000,000 one has to take into account the effect upon the exchanges and to contemplate the possibility, even the very remote possibility, that for exceptional reasons it might not be possible on a. certain date to bring the whole sum to Great Britain. To meet a very remote contingency we ask for this amount of latitude. My hon. and gallant Friend ought to keep a further point in
mind. It seems probable that the funding of the sum in Great Britain will mean a lower rate of interest than that at present given by the Government of India. It might, therefore, be to the disadvantage of the subscribers and the beneficiaries to bring over the fund too hurriedly, particularly at a time when the return upon gilt-edged securities is as low as it is. I merely throw that out to him as a suggestion in favour of this measure of latitude we are asking for ourselves. I can assure him that as far as I am concerned, the Joint Select Committee are concerned, and the Government of India are concerned we are anxious to see this fund set up in Great Britain at the earliest possible opportunity. We think that it can be set up within three years, but we would like this provision made.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Do I gather that this fund is a separate cash fund earning interest for the benefit of the subscribers to the fund and is not used by the Government of India for its special purposes, and that it would be transferred as a total cash fund to this country and earn interest in this country?

Sir S. HOARE: I have already answered the first question, and evidently the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. I said that it was part of the general funds of India, and, as such, was receiving a comparatively high rate of interest. Certainly when it comes over here it will be a separate fund and will obtain whatever interest can be obtained by gilt-edged securities.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I must be very stupid, but I was not clear whether this fund was a book fund or an actual cash fund kept separate from the Indian revenues.

8.3 p.m.

Major MILLS: I welcome the statement of the Secretary of State. He has given one more proof, if that were necessary, of his anxiety to do everything he can to allay the anxieties of the pensioners in this country. He has indeed given proof of that by another Amendment on this Clause by which he seeks to clarify the position. The Amendment which I sought to move was solely to limit the indefiniteness of this proviso, and I wished to do so because we all have the greatest possible sympathy with the pensioners,
the right hon. Gentleman himself more than anyone. Although this Clause is being introduced to alleviate their anxiety, I think the indefiniteness of this proviso has almost increased their alarm, because they feel that they are possibly being fobbed off by a promise which may or may not be fulfilled. In view of that, I should be prepared to support the omission of these words, but can visualise circumstances such as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out in which a short period of grace could be of considerable help in enabling this transfer to be effected smoothly. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, questions of exchange might enter into it, or the investment at home of a large sum of money might affect Stock Exchange values here to the detriment of pensioners. I want to ask, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman to consider this suggestion I have made in a sympathetic way. I know that he wants to bring the money home as quickly as he can. I suggest that four years—three years in the Statute and a one year extension—would be sufficient.
After all, he himself in the past has seen the advantage of having a definite fixed maximum laid down. On page 309, Volume II, of the Records that were laid before the Select Committee there is a memorandum by my right hon. Friend, dated 25th July, 1934, and in paragraph 8 he says that he is abandoning one scheme and substituting
a scheme whereby transfer could be made at any rate allowed by the financial conditions of the time, but subject in any case to the completion of the transfer by a fixed maximum period.
Later the right hon. Gentleman says:
It will, however, probably be desired that a limit shall be set by Statute to the period of transfer,
and further down:
It is thought, therefore, that the statutory maximum. period should not be shorter than 12 years.
I know that he has reduced that period of 12 years to three with the idea of effecting the transfer as quickly as possible. But in so doing he has abandoned his principle of a fixed maximum period and I think that he has increased the alarm of the pensioners. I am quite convinced that he means to do it as quickly as possible, but the pensioners outside are frightened because they have not read his memorandum; they know only this proviso, and they fear that it may provide
a loophole for non-fulfilment of the promise made. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will revert to his previous idea and put in as short a term as he can. Now this is to be done by Order-in-Council. Will it be possible for this House to amend that Order, or will it have to accept or reject the Order as presented to it? Obviously, the people outside this House would feel that they were getting more protection from Parliament if it were possible to amend and not merely reject or accept the Order.
There is just one other idea which possibly underlies this proviso. There is an option to the pensioners either to have the fund brought home or to leave it there. Some no doubt will have it transferred; some will leave it there. Suppose the transfer is completed for, those who want to have it brought home,, is there any intention of keeping alive this power to bring funds home in case circumstances in India should change and people who had acquiesced in leaving their money there should desire subsequently to have it brought back? Pensioners would be in sympathy with that view, and it might indeed encourage them to consent to their money being left in India. If the right hon. Gentleman has that wholly benevolent idea in mind, I respectfully suggest that he should introduce special words for the purpose. If he has not already got it in mind, I wonder whether he will examine it, or perhaps tell me now why it is unnecessary. I apologise for taking up the time of the Committee, but it is the only occasion on which I have addressed the Committee on the Bill. The pension Clauses are important and affect many people in my constituency, and I feel it my duty to do what I can in regard to them.

Sir H. CROFT: May I add my plea to that of my hon. and gallant Friend and ask whether the Secretary of State cannot do something to make this time limit definite?

8.10 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I am under the impression that three years, with an extension by Order-in-Council, is really a safe procedure. The three years are only to be extended by a resolution of both Houses. I think that that is a considerable safeguard, particularly after the assurance which I have given, namely, that all the parties concerned wish to set up this
fund in England as soon as possible. I hesitate to go further than that, but I am quite ready to consult the Government of India on the point. One has to be extraordinarily careful in dealing with these questions of a big transfer of exchange from one country to another, but I will look into the point again with the Government of India. As at present advised, I should have thought that three years, with an extension only possible by Order-in-Council, which under an Amendment I am moving later in the Bill, can be amended, was sufficient, because we all want the same thing.
The hon. Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Major Mills) asked me whether the pensioners can continue the option or, whether, having refused to take the chance, the chance will not recur. I am afraid that they must make the decision now. It would naturally be very difficult to carry through the proceeding if we did not know— I do not say in a few days or weeks—what is the sum to be left in India and what is the sum to be funded here. The option therefore must be once and for all. We are already circularising the pensioners and the beneficiaries, and at present I have no information to make me judge whether the majority of these subscribers and beneficiaries will wish to leave their money in India or bring it home here.

Captain SHAW: If the Indian Government are paying 5 per cent. on that money, will they continue to pay it?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that that will arise better on a later Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft).

Sir H. CROFT: I think the Committee will realise that there is really nothing between us. The Secretary of State has promised to consider the question, and personally I am prepared to leave it there if my hon. Friends are agreed. We are grateful for the consideration which the Secretary of State has shown and appreciate the powerful arguments which he has put forward.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.14 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I beg to move, in page 147, line 14, to leave out "reductions" and to insert "alterations."

Sir S. HOARE: We will accept this Amendment.

Sir H. CROFT: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for seeing the point. There might be an alteration in the value of the rupee or some other consideration, and it might not be a question of a reduction but of an increase.

Sir S. HOARE: I am afraid there are more likely to be reductions than increases, but I am quite ready to leave the question open.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper: In page 147, to leave out lines 23 to 28.—[Sir H. Croft.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I should be grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) if he would explain the purport of this Amendment before I decide whether to select it or not.

8.16 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: The lines referred to are:
references to the Indian Military Service Family Pension Regulations or the Indian Civil Service Family Pension Rules shall be construed as including references to any Regulations or Rules which may be substituted therefore
I desire to move their omission merely for the purpose of elucidation, as we are not clear what the Government's proposal means.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and gallant Member merely desires to move the Amendment for the purpose of putting a question, I will select it.

Sir H. CROFT: I beg to move, in page 147, to leave out lines 23 to 28.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: These words have been inserted in the Clause in order to prevent a difficulty in regard to the position of funds with branches at home and in India. They refer to the regulation of sterling branches of funds kept at home. I agree that the words are rather obscure, but, I think, if the hon. and gallant Member goes into the matter, he will find that they are valuable.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

8.18 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: There are one or two points in connection with this Clause on which I feel the situation has not yet been made clear. The Committee may not understand the present position in connection with these family pension funds and what will he the effect of bringing them to this country. The Secretary of State referred to them as being funds of the Government of India and indicated that a fairly high rate of interest was being paid on them, but I think I am not mistaken when I say that in fact there are no such funds at all, and that the interest which is supposed to be paid upon them is purely a pro forma matter in connection with the calculation made by the actuary as to the value of a particular fund at any particular moment. What happens is that all contributions made by serving officers who are in India are paid into the Treasury and credited as ordinary revenue. On the other hand pensions are paid just as any other ordinary expenditure would be paid ou of the Treasury. A fund as such does not exist and no interest on a fund as far as I am aware appears in the accounts of the Government of India. All that is kept for the purpose of making up the value of the fund is a pro forma account showing the annual contributions, the excess of contributions over payments, and what would be the value of those contributions, had interest at the rate of 5 per cent. been calculated upon them all along. It is a question of the actuarial valuation of the whole fund as it stands at a given moment in view of the demands likely to be made upon it as the years go by and so forth. The anxiety of the pensioners arises from the fact that the fund does not actually exist.
The Secretary of State says that it is not intended that the finances of the Government of India should ever get into such a state that this obligation could not be met. That would be all right as long as the right hon. Gentleman himself was Secretary of State. We believe that he would see that these obligations are met and probably that may be so for some time to come. But what people have to remember is that this is not merely a question of what is paid to a few pensioners who are alive at a given time. It may be necessary to extend this for another 50, 60 or even 70 years. No
one, not even the Secretary of State, not even the present Government, would dare to say what is going to happen in India in 30 or 40 or 50 years. Therefore it is all the more necessary that these funds should be brought home and funded and although there may be some drop on account of a lower rate of interest, yet security is worth a great deal more than any loss which may be incurred in diminution in the pensions, and that loss need not be so great as is anticipated so long as the actuarial value of a fund continues to be a considerable and reliable sum.
As regards the other matter to which reference has been made, what the Secretary of State has said is quite true as to the period within which funds could be transferred. First of all, the idea was 15 years and then 10 years was suggested. Finally, just at the end of the Joint Select Committee recommendations there is a reference to a note by the Secretary of State expressing the hope that it would be in quite a short time. That was the expression used, and I may say that I interpreted "quite a short time" to mean about three years. The point of the anxiety about this question of extension is that it takes away entirely all the benefits of that reduction first from 15 years to 10 years arid then to three years. Surely it ought not to be outside the capacity of the finances of the Government of India to remit £12,000,000 in a space of three years. But if it is—if it cannot be done in that time—then it is certainly desirable that the period should not be left at the Greek Kalends, which is 1Jhe exact position under the Bill. There must be some sort of definite period. I think the right hon. Gentleman was prepared not long ago to say 10 years, but lie is not bound under the wording of the Bill as it stands to limit it even to 10 years.
There may be other Governments, other parties, in power and there may be great agitation in India by people who say that their financial position is imperilled by these demands. All sorts of things may happen. Therefore, on behalf of these pensioners and beneficiaries, many of them widows and children, I venture to represent to the right hon. Gentleman that something less vague than this wording to the effect that the period may be extended should be included in the
Bill. Even if it were a further two years making five years in all, that would be something definite. But if there is nothing definite in the Act some other Government—I do not care which party it represents—may be anxious to go on extending and may use a majority for that purpose. The whole security of the pensioners and the satisfaction which they got by this very provision—which as I have pointed out, came down to a period of a few years—will be lost of it is possible in future for the Government of the day, whatever it might be, to go on postponing this matter. That is why I ask that we should have some definite date than the Greek Kalends. I hope very much indeed that the points I have put will be re-examined by the right hon. Gentleman to se how far be can meet those anxieties.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I sympathise with the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) in his desire to see that these pensioners are safeguarded, and I understand his apprehensions in regard to a, fund which has hitherto existed only as a bookkeeping fund. I am sure his apprehensions must be greatly increased by his close association with the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in the last few months, because he has contemplated the possibility of other Governments coming in India, and he knows that Indians are only too apt to imitate closely the practice of the British Constitution. I am sure that, in the course of his association with the right hon. Member for Epping, he has learned what a past master in the raiding of funds the right hon. Member for Epping is, how he has raided the Road Fund, the Health Fund, and so on. Therefore, I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's apprehensions, and I hope that he and his friends will do their best to see that the right hon. Member for Epping never comes to be in charge of our finance in this country.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: My apprehensions in this matter existed long before I knew my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill).

8.27 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I appreciate the indication that the Secretary of State gave
that he will reconsider this matter, and after the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock), I think the reasons for the Secretary of State's decision must have been made quite clear. When the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), speaking for the Socialist party, called attention to the fears expressed by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), I would ask him to realise that these fears, which have been expressed almost indefinitely against this Bill, are nothing to the dread which exists in the minds of a very large number of pensioners in India. It may interest the Committee to know that I have had placed in my hands this afternoon, by a pensioner from India, a short statement which will at once show the hon. Member for Limehouse why they feel nervous. This statement points out that in every Province in India, with two exceptions, allowing for the abolition of pay cuts, there is an estimated Budget deficit, and if we take the last three years, there is only one Province in the whole of India, the Punjab, which has shown a balance. If we take the deficits in the Provinces this year, we find that Bengal has a deficit of 68 lakhs of rupees and Assam one of 58 lakhs, and in the other Provinces also there are considerable deficits.
These facts, therefore, are very real before the minds of these pensioners, who say: "When you see these great deficits at the present moment, if the finances of India are taken over into less experienced hands, are we not entitled to ask from the Imperial Parliament for every kind of protection to see that we do not suffer a grave loss?" I do not mean from any design, because I think the well-affected Indians will certainly desire to fulfil their obligations in every respect, but I must also remind the Committee that the Congress party has deliberately declared for repudiation, and, that being so, one must appreciate the fears of these people. I remember a, reply given to me by the Secretary of State two years ago, when he said, "I beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman not to overrate the influence of Congress." I said I hoped he was right, but since then Congress has swept practically every Hindu seat throughout the length and breadth of India and holds the great majority of the elected representatives in the Chamber. Therefore,
these fears are very real, and I welcome the promise of the Secretary of State to reconsider the question.
We all hope there will not be a default, but supposing there is, may I ask the Under-Secretary of State what steps he would take to secure the position and what are the powers that he would actually use in such a contingency? We might have hoped that the Amendment an the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Emmott) would be considered, but if the procedure outlined in the Amendment is regarded by the Government as too drastic, cannot the Government adopt the alternative of a temporary advance from the British Government sufficient to cover the deficit, the advance being recoverable from the Federation and Provinces in due course? If the Government has no fear of this state of affairs, which is clearly dreaded by a large number of pensioners in India and elsewhere, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman give that assurance, and why cannot we have the definite determination of the Government to guarantee these funds and to see that they are recoverable from the Federation or the Provinces concerned?

8.32 p.m.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: It is easy to understand why beneficiaries under these funds should feel uneasy. It has become clear in the course of the discussion that some of these questions have an analogy in the Teachers' Contributory Pensions Fund in this country. The contributions made by the Government to the teachers for their superannuation scheme are not put into a separate fund, but are entered in the books of the Government, and as each liability falls due the pension is paid. I can understand the reluctance of the Secretary of State to fix a definite term within which these funds should be brought to this country, supposing all the beneficiaries determined in favour of that course and supposing the funds were brought over at once. The Secretary of State has told us that the total involved is £12,000,000. In order to bring those 'funds at once to this country, the Indian Government would have to issue a loan of £12,000,000. I cannot see that it could transfer the fund in any other way, and in view of what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) as to the
possibility of repudiation on the part of the Federal Legislature, with a majority of Congress representatives, one can thoroughly understand the uneasiness of the beneficiaries under these funds.

8.34 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I want to put this view to the tinder-Secretary of State. I understand these funds are contributed to by the servants of the Government of India, and they are really their funds, the provision that they have been making for their widows and for the education of their children and the like. In that case I hold that the Government, which is making this great change in the Government of India, is really in the position of a trustee. These are not the Government's funds at all, and whether it is £12,000,000 or any other sum to be transferred, it is not £12,000,000 of Government money, but £12,000,000 obtained from civil servants. That being so, what right have they to say that the date can be postponed when they will transfer these funds home and place them in what is regarded by the beneficiaries as security at an unknown future date? The Government are bound to satisfy these people that the funds to which they have contributed are absolutely safe. They have the Government's assurance that a certain course will be taken. 'In that case, as in the case of any other trustee in similar circumstances, a change in the investment ought to be made. The beneficiaries should have the last word, and all we are asking is that they should be given the kind of security that they require. In those circumstances, the Bill as it stands is misconceived. It deals with this money and the difficulties of transferring it home as if it were money that belonged to the Government. It is not. It is merely money that has been deposited with the Government that has hitherto existed in India. That Government is to be changed and people have a right to say that they demand a change in the security of their funds.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I feel that the Committee desire an extra word from the Government in relation to these important Family Pension Funds. I think that the spirit that prevailed in the earlier part of our discussions ought not to be spoiled by anything that any of us may say on this important matter. The
hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) showed a proper appreciation of the seriousness of the subject by the manner in which he accepted the assurance of my right hon. Friend that he would give the matter his most serious consideration. Many of us know people and have people connected with us who are vitally interested in this subject, and it is for everyone in the Committee to realise the serious apprehensions that may be felt—we believe very often upon a misconception of what the future of India may hold—and, whatever may be our view about the Government of India Bill, it is our duty to deal with this subject with extreme care.
The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth accepted the assurance of my right hon. Friend, and therefore I need not repeat my right hon. Friend's words; but I would point out to those hon. Members who have been critical that the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) was withdrawn. That proves that the hon. arid gallant Member appreciates that the Secretary of State has this matter very much at heart. The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) made a point which I think we have fully met. He said that the beneficiaries should have the last word. It is our intention in discussing the family pension funds that the beneficiaries should have the last word. As is well known to the Committee, and was known to the Joint Select Committee, the beneficiaries have been given the choice of transferring their balances in the four pension funds to this country or of keeping them in India. The choice will be theirs. My right hon. Friend has pointed out that there will be a difference of interest if they do transfer to this country and those who decide to do that will have what they regard as a certain safeguard. Others, however, may like to keep their balances in India. In any case, we fulfil the wishes of the hon. Baronet in giving the beneficiaries the last word.
It would be wrong and out of order if we were to extend the discussion to any other subject than the Family Pension Funds. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) raised the question of what would happen in the
future of India. That is an open question. He was right to point out that the beneficiaries of these funds may be drawing their money for as long as 100 years hence; at any rate, for 60 or 70 years hence. Therefore, the Committee will have to project their minds rather far into the future. We consider, nevertheless, that the safeguards which we have included in the Bill are sufficient to meet the apprehensions of the beneficiaries under these funds, but, as I have said, the opportunity will be given to them, if they desire, to bring their funds home. The question was raised in the speech of the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) whether the terms of Clause 261 were satisfactory. He said that we were putting the matter off to the Greek Kalends, and that, whereas the Secretary of State originally proposed 12 years, this had been reduced to three years, and that we now had the proviso to Clause 261 in which we say:
Provided that His Majesty in Council may, if it appears to him necessary so to do, extend the said period of three years
I need only repeat the assurance given by my right hon. Friend that there is no intention to delay unnecessarily or unduly the return of any funds which beneficiaries may desire to be transferred to England. The object of the proviso is to meet any unforeseen contingency. We have all been through financial crises and know the uncertainty that attaches to these important matters, and the reason for the insertion of the proviso was not to put the transfer of these funds off to the Greek Kalends, but to provide both Houses of Parliament with an opportunity of deferring the transfer of the funds if it be not a suitable moment to do so. If the funds are removed to England for the benefit of certain of the beneficiaries, it is important to choose the right moment for the transfer. It is important from the point of view of the interest that may be derived, and so forth. I think, therefore, that it is a wise provision. It is not intended to delay the transfer of the funds or to operate against the advantage of the beneficiaries that we have inserted the proviso.

Sir B. PETO: Even if the three years remain, the Government would still have an option, inside that three years, of
selecting the best time for the transfer in the interest of the beneficiaries.

Mr. BUTLER: I appreciate the point of view of the hon. Baronet. The words of the Bill are "before the expiration of three years," and I agree that this is possible, but in these matters, in view of the passage of the Bill and the time necessary after the passage of the Bill to transfer these funds, we have shown wisdom in including this proviso. I hope that the hon. Baronet will take my assurance that it is the intention of my right hon. Friend that the funds which beneficiaries desire to transfer shall not be, unduly delayed. I appreciate the hon. Baronet's point, but I think we are showing extra caution in inserting the proviso. May I reinforce what my right hon. Friend said and point cut that it will be necessary for both Houses to approve the Order-in-Council if this extension be made. I should have thought that a sufficient safeguard to those who think that we are introducing this provision to delay matters. The general criticism was that there should be some less vague provision. Surely the best reassurance we can give is the fact that my right hon. Friend has, since the period of the Joint Select Committee, materially reduced the time in which these funds should be brought back from 12 years to a possible period of under three. I think that that, coupled with the assurance that 'both Houses have to give their approval to the Order-in-Council, ought to go a great way to ease the anxieties of hon. Members who have intervened in the Debate.
I hope that from those few words the Committee will have realised the anxiety and the seriousness with which my right hon. Friend has considered this subject. I feel sure the Committee will have realised by the provisions to be found throughout the Bill, whether they be in the special responsibilities of the Governor-General, whether they be in the Clauses dealing with the Services which we have just passed, or whether they be in the powers given to the Governor-General or to the Governors to enact Bills to pass taxation to meet these liabilities, that we have really provided for any eventuality in the future, and that my right hon. Friend, after what he has said about the anxieties of the Services, intends to do whatever he can to meet
the views of people to whose case this Committee should have special regard.

Clause 262 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 263.—(Interpretation, etc.)

8.47 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to, move, in page 148, line 40, after "expressions," to insert "'All-India Service.'"
This is the first of a series of purely drafting Amendments. This is an interpretation Clause, and the first part of Sub-section (1) provides, in effect, that certain descriptions of certain Services shall have the same meaning as they have in the classification rules at present in force. Since this Clause was drafted certain references have been introduced into the Bill in the form of Amendments, among them the Railway Services Class I and Class II and the All-India Services. Those expressions ought to be covered by the first part of Sub-section (1), and given the same meaning as they have at present, and these Amendments merely adapt the first interpretation paragraph to deal with expressions which are now to be found in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 148, line 41, after "II," insert "Railway Service Class I.' Railway Service Class II."

In page 149, line 2, leave out from "Act," to the second "the," in line 4, and insert "so described respectively in." —[The Solicitor-General.]

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 149, line 11, to leave out Sub-section (2).
The Sub-section which it is proposed to omit reads:
The Rules Publication Act, 1893, shall not apply to any rules or regulations made under this Part of this Act.
I do not know that this Amendment will effect any great alteration in the practice at any rate which has been pursued in the past. The Rules Publication Act, 1893, enshrines the provisions which Parliament thought fit and proper to apply at the date when the Act was passed, and they have not since been amended. It draws a distinction between rules such
as those which were made in Clause 235, and rules made under express provisions in a Statute, and provides in those cases for their publication in the "Gazette" and for representations being made, and the rule making authority, in this case the Secretary of State, has to consider the representations, and there are also time limits and certain provisions for dealing with emergencies. My right hon. Friend is quite prepared that these provisions shall apply by Statute, as they will if this Amendment is accepted and the Sub-section is deleted, to the rules which fall to be made under this Chapter. So far as other rules are concerned, under the Rules Publication Act they have to be published in the statutory rules and orders; and there, again, we have no objection to that. The Committee may ask why this Sub-section was ever put into the Bill. The reason was that it was felt some expense might be saved in dealing with minor rules if we had not to go through the various forms of publication which the Rules Publication Act provides. But representations have been made on the subject, and we have no sort of objection to all the safeguards of the Act being applied to rules of one or the other character which may be required to be made under this Bill. In any case, the saving of expense would have been very small, and we think it better that the Act should apply.

8.53 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I am very glad that the Government have moved in this matter more or less of their own volition. Those of us who have taken more interest in the Bill than some Members may feel a little remiss at not having observed this particular Sub-section. I think it would have been very undesirable that it should have remained in the Bill, even if it was put in with the possibility of saving extra expense. The House passed the Rules Publication Act 38 years ago and I think it is a very good thing that the benefits of that Act should be preserved when any alterations are being made in the rules,.governing the conditions of service of any body of servants of the State.

Amendment agreed to.

8.54 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, in page 149, line 16, after "India," to insert:
(a) include references to persons who, after service in India, Burma, or Aden, retired from the service of His Majesty before the commencement of Part III of this Act;
(b).
This is really a, drafting Amendment, to make it quite clear as in Clauses 12 (d) and 52 (c), that these various safeguards cover officials who have already retired from the Services. It has been made quite clear in another part of the Bill, and I want to make it quite clear in this Clause as well.

Mr. ATTLEE: Is there any point of substance in this Amendment, or is it only a correction? In the Clause as originally drafted it was only "Burma or Aden," and in the Amendment it becomes "Burma or Aden."

Sir S. HOARE: It is only a, correction. There is no point of substance.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 149, line 19, leave out from "Aden" to the end of the Sub-section—[Sir S. Hoare.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 264.—(Advisers to Secretary of State.)

8.55 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: I beg to move, in page 149, line 37, after "number" to insert: "and one of whom shall be a woman."
We are now coming to a subject which will come up again in its different ways before we have finished with our discussion of the Bill, namely, the question of how the Bill affects the interests of Indian women. The position of the Secretary of State's advisers is a very important one, because in certain cases he will not be able to act unless he gets the support of a majority of those advisers. It will be the duty of the Secretary of State in many cases to give advice to the Governor-General and to the various Governors, or to take action in certain ways, and it is very important that the interests of the 131,000,000 women of British India, as well as of the many other millions of women in the Indian States, should be represented on this most important body.
I will give two reasons for that. Everybody knows that the women of India have suffered for ages, and still suffer,
from immense social evils such as child marriage and maternal mortality, and many others into which I need not go at the present time and which demand legislation. Undoubtedly when the new Constitution comes into operation, measures will be introduced dealing with some of those very important social questions, which are likely to cause a good deal of controversy. Child marriage causes a good deal of controversy now. One can imagine that so much controversy and disturbance might be caused that it would become the duty of the Secretary of State to take action. We consider it is very important that, before he gives his advice to the Governor-General or the Governors, or takes drastic action in such matters, he should have the opportunity of consulting an Indian woman who is familiar with those matters and who would be able to give advice which I am sure the Secretary of State would appreciate.
The second reason for which I put forward this proposal is that everybody who knows India is convinced that the most extraordinary phenomenon of modern times is the rise and advancement of Indian women. After being kept in subjection for many years they are now coming forward at a greater pace than even women in England. It is part of the rise of the women's movement all over the world, not merely in. the West of Europe but East of Europe. I saw in the paper to-day a photograph of one of the first women members of Parliament elected in Turkey. I was very struck by meeting an Indian lady who, six weeks before, had been in purdah and now had got out of purdah, and was shopping in Bond Street, travelling in aeroplanes and going to Paris. I feel that modern Indian women who have freed themselves from the shackles of the past are the very ones who could help to steer fearlessly through the dark recesses that still exist in Indian life.

Sir B. PETO: Does the hon. Member suggest that Indian women who go shopping in Bond Street would be useful in advising the Secretary of State?

Mr. COCKS: That was only a slight reference which the hon. Baronet should not take so seriously. We know he takes a very serious view of life.

Sir B. PETO: I always take a serious view of the hon. Member's speeches. I
thought he would not have introduced the argument if he had not meant it.

Mr. COCKS: I am very sorry if I have offended the hon. Member's susceptibilities. In spite of what the hon. Member said, I believe, and I am not the only one who believes, that the future of India lies very largely in the hands of the women of India. That is why I feel that it would be very easy for the Secretary of State if he had a woman on his Council. I am not at all sure that the India Office is entirely free from ancient masculine prejudice in this matter. It is a very ancient office and is perhaps remote to some extent from modern movements. There was only one woman representative, Miss Pickford, on the Joint Select Committee, whose parting from us was such a loss both to India and to England, and on the delegation that reached us from India there was only one woman, Begum Shah Nawaz, whose work for her Indian sisters we very greatly admired. The India Office should free itself from its rather oriental masculine prejudices. The Secretary of State with all his wisdom, knowledge and common sense, would appreciate the advice and the presence on his council of a lady from India who would be helpful to him and to the future government of India.

9.3 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I hope that the Committee will not tie the hands of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will be free to appoint a woman or not as he thinks fit. The Committee should remember that the advisers are primarily appointed to advise the Secretary of State on Service questions and that is to be their locus standi Their position will be of a more limited character than is the position of the present Council. At present, rightly or wrongly, there are no women in the Secretary of State's Services. When there are women in the Secretary of State's Services that will be the time for the women's movement to claim that their interests should be represented in the Secretary of State's Council. Women qua women would be out of place in this particular body of advisers. It is much better to leave the appointment open. I am not in the least prejudiced one way or the other; in fact, my political past will show that I have always been on the side of bringing in women to bodies of
this kind. In present circumstances, however, I think it would be better not to make a statutory enactment of this kind, but to leave it to the Secretary of State to act in the light of circumstances as they may develop. When the circumstances have so changed that it is fitting that he should have the advice of a woman on service questions, then will be the time when a woman will be appointed.

9.5 p.m.

Major HILLS: The Secretary of State is so old a supporter of the women's cause that I feel rather diffident in differing from him. If I may for a moment indulge in a personal reminiscence, I believe I was the first Member of the House to introduce a Motion that there should be a women's vote in India, and the Secretary of State did me the honour of voting for that Motion. I quite appreciate that it is not the right way to look at this question from the point of view of women qua women, and I do not believe that that is the essence of the movement which has swept over a large part of the world. The real object of supporting the appointment of a woman is that, if a woman is the best person for a post, a woman should get it. But in this special instance there is a strong case for putting one woman on to the Secretary of State's Council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), who made an interjection just now, seemed to me to overlook the immense advance that Indian women have made since 1919, and are still making. I am sure that women's questions will play an increasing part in India in the future. I believe that the women's movement in India is the key to progress, and, the importance of starting the new Government on right lines being very great, I should have been very glad if my right hon. Friend could have yielded on this question. The concession would not be a great one, and it would be in line with the feeling which I know he has held on previous occasions. We may hope that as long as he is Secretary of State women's claims will not be disregarded; but no Secretary of State is immortal. A change might come over the scene, the importance of women's questions in India might be neglected, and we might get a state of things that would not lead to the contentment and good government of India.
Moreover, the women Of India are very much awake, and I may say in passing that the idea that used to exist that women in India are kept back, and that they have no influence on affairs is entirely erroneous. It was out of date in 1919, and it is absolutely obsolete now. Women, at any rate, have been at the bottom of the revolutionary movement in India, which shows that they are not without power. By accepting this Amendment my right hon. Friend would have been doing something which would satisfy the opinion of women in India. No one who has met Indian women can fail to be struck by the educational qualifications and the qualifications of mind which they possess. People who have not seen them do not realise that, but think they are all veiled and kept in seclusion. That is a worn-out idea. It did not exist to the extent to which it was supposed to exist. Women in India have accepted the modern world, and their minds have moved in consonance with it. I wonder if the Secretary of State could yield this point? I know that we are safe in entrusting him with the selection, but it is not enough to be right in this world—you must show that you are right, and that you mean to do right. It would be a great mark to India if the women of India were told that there would be some representative of their sex on the Council of the Secretary of State. In any case there would only be one, and, however persuasive a woman is, she cannot over-rule five men. For every reason I hope that, even at the last moment, my right hon. Friend may yield.

9.12 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: The Secretary of State, in replying on the Amendment, has said that the primary object of these advisers is to advise on matters relating to the Services. But that is not clearly indicated in the Bill, where we are told that the Secretary of State's advisers may be consulted on any matter relating to India on which he may desire their advice. May not one of those matters be, not only the Services as they are, but what difference it may be necessary to make in the Services if they are to cover all the needs and interests of the population of India? I know too well that those who inserted this proposal in the Bill were thinking mainly of the Services as they are—were thinking, perhaps,
of such questions as how the finances of India and the defences of India might be safeguarded, and of the interests of those already in the Services. Their thoughts, I am sure, were far from such facts as, to give a single example, that, of all the babies born in Japan and in India respectively, in any given year, more than half the Japanese babies, but less than one-fifth of the Indian babies, will live to reach the age of 50. I am sure they were not thinking of such facts, as being among the matters about which the Secretary of State might want to consult his advisers, as that in any one year not less than 200,000 mothers in India die in childbirth—about 20 every hour of the day and night—

Duchess of ATHOLL: Surely my hon. Friend realises that all these questions, which are of such tremendous importance and interest to the people of India, will be handed over as transferred subjects, and we shall not be able to touch them.

Miss RATHBONE: I will deal with that point in a minute. As I have said, I do not suppose that the question of the colossal maternal death-rate in India was in the minds of those who recommended the appointment of these officers, or the fact that many of these mothers are young girls in their early teens, and that that most of them die without the skilled attendance of a doctor or trained midwife or any kind of anaesthetic. That is not the kind of question about which those who proposed the appointment of advisers, to the Secretary of State imagined he would wish to consult them.
I foresaw that I should be told that questions such as these are health questions, and that health is a transferred subject, and will come under the provincial governments rather than directly under the Secretary of State. But, in the first place, evils such as these and kindred evils are not merely a question of the existence or lack of medical services; they depend partly on the marriage laws and their administration, and partly on economic factors such as poverty and all that makes for poverty; and these factors come within the Federal sphere. Secondly, even in the matter of health, although it is true that we are conferring wider autonomy on the Provinces that does not absolve the Secretary of State wholly from responsibility in these matters. India is a whole and the object
of this Bill is to make it still more a whole. Every part of all these immensely complicated structures which we are erecting in this Bill acts and reacts upon the other part. It is true that Provincial Governors will fill the posts in the Provincial services, but it is the Secretary of State, in effect, who appoints the Governors. It is the Secretary of State who fills the higher services.
The Secretary of State has told us that one of the reasons why he does not want to accept the Amendment is that there are no women in his service. Yes, but it might be one of the functions of a woman adviser, if there were a woman adviser to recommend him to do what he is empowered to do, namely, to open the Civil Service to women, and, if that were not suitable, to create a special branch of the Civil Service for women. Would not the effect of a woman adviser be to bring the whole range of women's influence and interests, which he thinks are of so little importance that they are not worthy to be in charge of a special woman adviser, within the range of his own vision rather more than it is at present?
I know that the second objection that will be raised by somebody to this proposal is that social reforms cannot go in advance of Indian opinion, and that their progress will depend on a change of heart among the Indians themselves. That is true. But the question which I ask of all whom I meet on the subject is: What are the Government in India or the Government in this country doing to educate public opinion on these questions Is it the case that the young men who go out to India year after year are told that women's interests and these great social evils are part of their responsibility and something that they ought to study, or are they still told, as the late Sir John Kerr told me he was advised when he first went out to India, "Young men, keep your hands off religion and the women"? So far as I can find out, that is still the tradition, and it is faithfully observed. I have been a whole-time worker for public causes for the last 40 years, but in all my life I have never been so completely up against a dead wall as in this business of Indian women. It is not a wall of active hostility—I could fight against that—and it is not a wall of conscious and deliberate apathy over
these evils. I do not think so badly of those concerned with the Government of India as to accuse them of that. It is a wall composed of tired and preoccupied minds of busy men—minds brimming over with interests and concerns which to them seem infinitely more important, or at least more within the scope of their daily duties than these questions of maternal mortality, child marriage and illiteracy. Hence they get to look with a kind of weary dislike and sick distaste—

Sir S. HOARE: On a point of Order. May we have your Ruling on this point, Sir Dennis? Is this to be a general debate upon the position of women in India? Will you tell us if that is so? It is a very narrow issue, namely, whether a. woman should be on the Secretary of State's Council, the Council having as its duty to advise the Secretary of State on service questions. Are we to have a general debate of this kind?

Mr. LANSBURY: Before you give your Ruling, Sir Dennis, may I call attention to the fact that the Clause says:
whose duty it shall be to advise the Secretary of State on any matter relating to India on which he may desire their advice.
How can that be limited? It is as wide as any subject mentioned in the Bill.

Miss RATHBONE: Before you answer that point of Order Sir Dennis, may I make this point? We have reached Clause 264, and this is the first question which really affects the status of women as women, and it is almost the only Clause in the Bill—

9.21 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that that does not affect the question at all.

Miss RATHBONE: As the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, the point is that this is the question of the choice of six advisers to the Secretary of State who may advise him upon any question upon which he wishes to consult them concerning India. Am I not in order in arguing as to the kind of subject upon which he might want to take advice and to point out—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady can make that speech when the time comes. May I call her attention to the fact that
the question of the point of Order on this occasion has nothing whatever to do with whether the question of women has been discussed hitherto, or whether it is the first time or the 12th time. All with which I have to deal at present is the point of Order.

Mr. COCKS: In supporting this Amendment, is not the hon. Lady entitled, in the course of her argument, to talk about the opposition which she is receiving?

The CHAIRMAN: That seems to be a hypothetical question. There is a point of Order before me at the moment, and I am perfectly prepared to give a ruling on it. The Clause provides for a body of persons:
whose duty it shall be to advise the Secretary of State on any matter relating to India on which he may desire their advice.
That is not quite world-wide, if I may use that expression, because quite obviously the Clause does not contemplate his asking their advice except in the performance of his official duties as Secretary of State for India. That is really almost the only implication to be drawn from it subject to this, that while it is in order to express the view that there should be a woman on this body for particular reasons, as for instance, the question generally of the influence of women in India, or their position in India, it is not, in my opinion, in order that these matters should be discussed in detail. I hope that the Committee will follow what I mean about this. It is the kind of ruling which I have to give very often. There are many matters to which it is quite in order and quite relevant to refer, but it is not in order to go into a discussion of these matters and to produce, so to speak, a subsidiary debate on something which has really nothing to do with the Clause under discussion. But within those limits, I consider that it is in order to give any reasons which hon. Members may think right in support of the view that there should be a woman on the body which is to advise the Secretary of State on matters which are within his province under this Bill as Secretary of State, and hon. Members must not go beyond that.

Miss RATHBONE: I will try to keep strictly within your ruling. I was trying to argue, first, that the questions relating to women's interests are of immense
importance and urgency, and secondly, that they tend to be neglected just because there is no body of persons whose daily duty it is to keep this kind of question under their survey. It is just because there are no women already in the Services that an appointment of this kind is needed.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady is not out of order at the moment, but I want to make clear to her the meaning of my ruling which I made just now. May I give an example? If there is some matter on which the Secretary of State has no official duty, let me say, for example, no right equivalent to that of initiating legislation on one particular matter, then it is not in order to discuss that particular matter on this Amendment.

Miss RATHBONE: I have no wish to do so. The point I was coming to immediately was that the very subject which the Secretary of State has enlarged upon as the principal part of the duties on which he wanted advisers is the question of the Services. I am sorry if I failed to make myself clear, but the whole burden of my argument is that this is a range of interests not at present sufficiently covered by the Services; and that, as it is within the Secretary of State's power to create fresh branches of the Services and to admit women to the Services if he pleases, a woman would be able to advise him just as to the need for women in the Services. She would be able to survey a whole range of questions as they come up in India, and to act as a kind of liaison officer between all the different departments and point out the relevance of all the different subjects as they conic up as they affect women. This is just the kind of subject which is comparatively neglected at present, because there is no woman whose whole-time job it is to keep these matters under constant surveillance and to bring them to the notice of the departments they concern.
I anticipate that one of the objections which makes the Secretary of State reluctant to accept this—and I see that he is impatient at the very time spent discussing this subject—is that he feels that there is not a woman competent to fill such a post. I do not think there is a woman alive who has the kind of experience of official life in India comparable
to that of the long-experienced civil servants and military men from whom it is probably intended to recruit these advisers. How could there be? Women have been excluded always from the services of the Governments in India, excepting so far as the filling of minor and subordinate posts are concerned. A Province here and there has appointed a, woman in some minor supervisory capacity, but except for that half-dozen —and one factory inspector in the whole of India—

The CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Member is now really getting to subjects which have nothing to do with the Secretary of State.

Miss RATHBONE: I am sorry. I was dealing with a point which the Secretary of State may urge— that there was no woman of sufficient experience for such a post. I want to say that I think this is probably one of the obstacles, but that it is also one of the reasons for such an appointment. The appointment of a woman who could keep a general survey over the whole field of women's needs and interests might make all the difference in the world, and might make all the difference between life and death to thousands of women in India, because it would bring all these terribly neglected interests constantly under the oversight of the Secretary of State. I believe that the black spot of British rule in India has been this neglect of the women's problem.
The Civil Service in India is a fine service, and I respect its members as conscientious, high-minded men; but where women's interests are concerned they have been timid, apathetic and unimaginative where they should have been bold, resourceful and energetic. Al/ along the generations, persistently, they have left out of the ambit of their sympathies, imagination and activities all these questions which mean life and death to women in India. This Bill gives several opportunities of repairing that error, in so far as it can be repaired, and this Amendment is one of them. I have almost given up hope where this question of women in India is concerned, but I do ask the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter. If he cannot give one post out of six to a woman, why not increase the number to seven? If he will
not accept a woman as one of his advisers, why will he not bring women into the Services in some other way?

The CHAIRMAN: That is outside this Amendment.

9.30 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I should like to assure the hon. Lady who has just spoken that if any single one of the matters she has mentioned with such great depth of feeling would remain within the purview and powers of the Secretary of State when this Bill is passed I should entirely support this Amendment. But I must express my surprise that neither she nor my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) seem to have grasped the fact that in the first place everything to do with health was transferred in 1921 to the control of Indian provincial ministers. Since then the Secretary of State has had no power in regard to it—though certain powers may perhaps be exercised through the Governor—and we in this House have not had the right to ask a single question about health subjects since 1921.

Miss RATHBONE: Will the Noble Lady deny that it is within our power to ask questions about the marriage laws. Have they nothing to do with health? Or that it is in the power of the Secretary of State to appoint women to the Civil Service if he likes, or any special branch of the Civil Service. Has that nothing to do with health?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I think it has just been ruled that the question of appointing women to the Civil Service is not under discussion. I do not deny that at this moment the Secretary of State no doubt has power with regard to the marriage laws, and the hon. Member and I can ask questions about that. But I am dealing with what the position will be when this Bill becomes law. The Secretary of State will have no power then, and we shall have no power here to ask any questions about women's status or the marriage laws. I tried at an earlier stage on this Bill to move an Amendment which would still have given the Governor-General some power in regard to the marriage laws, and I do not think that the hon. Member supported me in that. If my Amendment had been carried possibly we might have had some power still to ask questions, though the
Governor-General would not have had any power of initiative. All these powers are given over under this Bill, and I can think of nothing that the hon. Member has mentioned on which it will be within our power to ask questions when this Bill becomes law. For that reason, I feel I cannot support her in this matter. If I thought that any one of the matters which she mentioned was still really within our powers here and that we had any influence over these questions then I should think it my duty to join in asking the Secretary of State to accept the Amendment. But not one of the things which she or the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon mentioned, apart from—

Major HILLS: I do not think I mentioned any of these questions. Surely my Noble Friend will not deny that the Secretary of State still possesses immense influence over the future of India.

Duchess of ATHOLL: My right hon. Friend will not deny that the supporters of the Bill make a strong point that all these social customs are much better dealt with by Indian ministers. I must say that it will be very difficult for the Secretary of State to exercise any effective influence in that sort of matter and in those other matters to which my right hon. Friend was referring in his speech.

Mr. COCKS: Does not the Noble Lady agree that in any case where the Governor-General acts in his discretion he acts in consultation with the Secretary of State, and has the power of veto in measures affecting women?

Duchess of ATHOLL: He would have the power to veto any Measure proposed which would gravely menace peace and tranquillity in India. That would come within his special province, but he has no responsibility whatever for the welfare of the people of India except in so far as it concerns the question of peace and tranquillity. It is only in regard to security or internal order that this House will have any concern with the welfare of the people of India, if and when this Bill becomes law. That is one of the reasons why I have strongly opposed it. I might add that I accept the statement of my right hon. Friend that the function of these advisers will be chiefly in regard to Service questions. At present there are no women government
services and I doubt very much whether the time will come when there will be such services, unless the women's medical service becomes a Government service. I accept my right hon. Friend's assurance, that if and when the day comes when we have a women's service in India, although he may not be Secretary of State then, that the opinion that he has expressed to-night may be remembered and acted upon by his successors.

9.36 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think the Amendment an admirable one but I am not certain that it is not somewhat blasphemous. We are discussing what is to be the composition of the Council of India. If we were proposing to introduce women into the Athenaeum Club it would be a small affair compared with the proposal to introduce a woman into the Council of India. What is the Council of India? Incidentally, the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms proposed to abolish it, but failed. It has been preserved and' the Secretary of State has less powers in regard to it than before. The Council is being preserved for the same people at the same 'salaries. If we are making a change let us make a change for the better and introduce somebody into the Council of India—

The CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. and gallant Member will look at the top of page 151 he will see that it states that the Council of India as it exists shall be dissolved

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, and we are setting up an alternative to the Council of India.

The CHAIRMAN: Then perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will discuss the alternative and not the Council of India.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The alternative is to introduce into the Council of India, as recast, as reformed, into this phoenix, a woman member, and I cannot help thinking that the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) was perfectly right. It would be the first time that the advisers to the Secretary of State would be inspired to have initiative instead of remaining dormant as they are at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman has still enormous power left to him under this Bill of appointing members of the Civil Service. The women might make a start
in taking on the work which is now so largely social work. The right hon. Gentleman, as we have learned to-day, has also the power of introducing legislation into this House to amend this Bill. The Noble Lady opposite and we on these benches have tried to humanise the Bill for the protection of minorities and for the protection of women. All these improvements could be introduced in future legislation provided the Secretary of State is well advised, but not if he is continually advised by the same gentlemen who have advised him up to now-If he can have advisers who will be a,. real reflection of the public opinion of this country and of India, an energetic body intent on improving the situation instead of merely drawing retiring salaries, then we shall have a much better chance of bringing the new constitution into relationship with modern needs and, above all, into relationship with the changing needs of India when the Provincial governments are established. I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Cocks) but his action on this occasion almost reconciles me to his irregular past. I hope that we shall not have this question treated as if it were a blasphemous interference with the established order of the India Office but that we shall make a definite effort by this Amendment to put the India Office into a different position and to inspire it with a little more active progress.

9.41 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I have listened to every speech in the Debate. I have listened to the Noble Lady and to the hon. Lady opposite and to the mere male Members; and I have not heard a single speech which shows the slightest confidence on the part of those who support the. Amendment in the future of women or the probability of their being admitted into the councils of the Secretary of State. May I call attention to the first, lines of the Clause:
There shall be a body of persons appointed 
There is nothing to say that it shall be a body of men. If the Secretary of State either now or in the future finds that in connection with his Federal responsibilities it is necessary or he thinks it wilt be an advantage to be advised by one woman among three or one woman among six—those are the limits set down by the
Clause—he will appoint a woman. Those who claim to speak for women always seem to give away their case. They always seem to suggest that women will never get through of their own rights and therefore there must be a statutory provision for them. It is the same in this case. If a council of five or six is to be appointed they say that at least one must be a woman. If they had any confidence in the claims and rights of women they would put their case higher and say that five must be women. Why not leave the matter as it was put by the Secretary of State? It may be that in the future there will be a department in the Government of India where women will be recruited and where perhaps the women will be in a majority. In that state of affairs women no doubt will be required to advise the Secretary of State in regard to the large number of female employed of the State. The hon. Lady said that there were now no women employed or, rather, she said that a paltry five or six were employed in some minor posts, and the Chairman promptly ruled her out of -order. Why in these conditions should the Secretary of State be compelled to appoint one woman among three persons, or a maximum of six persons, in order to advise him? The Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) has pointed out that practically all these questions which are so erroneously referred to as women's questions—ߞ

Viscountess ASTOR: They are !

Sir P. PETO: Questions affecting health and maternity are questions upon which men are just as capable of giving advice as any woman in the land. The distinction between the two sexes is all wrong.

Viscountess ASTOR: If the hon. Member will look at the legislation of this House in the 15 years before women had the vote, he will find that there were only five Measures passed concerning women and children; measures which are passed now as a matter of course.

The CHAIRMAN: I have been very anxious not to curtail the Debate more than I can help, but really there are limits to the extent which the Chair can go in allowing a, discussion to exceed the ordinary practice of the Com-
mittee I must ask hon. Members to bear in mind the Ruling I gave just now, that this matter refers to the appointment of advisers to advise the Secretary of State only (as I hold) on matters which fall within his duty as Secretary of State under the Bill. At the present my attention has not been called to any Clause under which these advisers act except Clause 250, and that refers only to Chapter 2 of this part of the Bill. I must ask hon. Members to keep the Debate within those limits.

Sir B. PETO: I am glad to have your protection from the Noble Lady opposite. I gave way because she claimed to interrupt, but there was nothing in my remarks up to that point which could possibly have been held to have been disorderly, and without your intervention I was quite prepared to tell the Noble Lady that I should receive your censure if I attempted to reply to any of the questions which she hurled at me across the Floor of the House. I am content to protest against this claim. Whenever a committee or a commission or a body of advisers is set up those who have women's interests specially at heart always want to peg out a claim for one small proportion of these advisers to be a female. The Secretary of State has already completely answered the Debate. He has told us the circumstances under which he will have to perform his duties, and if there is a change which makes it advisable to appoint women there is nothing in this Clause to prevent a woman being appointed. In these circumstances, I do not see what further need there is for debating the question. Whenever this question is introduced, there is always a lot of talk upon it.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. LANSBU RY: I do not very often agree with the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), but I do agree with him on one point, that it is wrong to divide public questions into women's questions and men's questions. I have always approached the question of women's position in society, in politics, and in life generally, from the point of view that they have equal rights with men to help to organise and make society as tolerable as possible. I am going to vote for the Amendment. If we thought we stood a better chance by moving that there should be half and
half we should have done so, but we are modest. We want women to be recognised as a necessary part of the advisory committee to the Secretary of State. As I understand it, the Secretary of State will appoint the Viceroy and the governors, and he will have a great deal to do with the appointments to the Civil Service. I should have thought that he would have required the assistance and advice of a woman. It shows how static people's minds become.
We had in this country one of the greatest Queens which ever ruled. I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman would say if I suggested that he should have a woman on his committee to advise him as to the appointment of a woman Viceroy of India. Why not? The right hon. Gentleman will say that Queen Victoria was an, ideal Queen; he is too patriotic not say that. I do not see where the argument comes in that there will be nothing for women specially to do. I: do not want women appointed for special work, I think they should take part in the whole work connected with the administration of India. I do not want to leave it to the off-chance of a woman being appointed. We might do that if we did not know the India Office and Government offices generally. Women have had to fight their way into the Civil Service and into this House. They have obviously been aided by men, but there has always been a reactionary feeling that public affairs are outside a woman's sphere of action. We have never been able to accept the position, certainly not since women have been in this House, that you can leave it to the Minister to appoint this or that person. If we have wanted a woman on a certain body, we have always put it in the Bill, because we knew that it was unsafe to leave it to the Minister, not because he may be unsympathetic, but because the whole theory behind the Civil Service is that women are a. jolly nuisance, and the fewer there are of them the better. We take the opposite view, and especially with regard to India.
I know that there is a good deal of prejudice about British women, and that that prejudice is greater in regard to Indian women. You have only to attend a meeting of a university debating society in London or Oxford or Cambridge, or at any of the universities, when there is a discussion on Indian
affairs, and you find Indian women as competent to take part in that discussion as any British woman or many a British male student. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Committee will not accept this very modest proposal for one woman member, leaving the good experience which will be gained from her work to help us on to further developments. I believe that the Lord President was right when, in speaking to a conference of Conservative women, he said that the most hopeful sign for the future in regard to India was the awakening of Indian women. I believe that one of the best signs for the future of the world is the awakening of women all over the East. I should have hoped that in putting this Bill forward and in dealing with an Amendment like this, a Government of which the Lord President is one of the chief members would have conceded this very small reform. I ask for it, not for women, as women, to deal with questions affecting women and children, but I ask for it on their behalf as citizens of equal standing and equal rights with men to deal with all the questions that affect the well-being of India.

9.57 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I cannot help thinking that the Committee is under a good many misapprehensions about this proposal. There is no question of any of us being less interested in women's questions in India than any other section of the Committee. We are just as keen about them as any one. The question, and the only question, is whether it is going to make much difference whether there is one woman on the Secretary of State's Council in present circumstances or not, and whether on the whole it is a wise course to tie the Secretary of State's hands in the choice of his advisers. It seems to have been assumed in the Debate that the Secretary of State's Council at present and the Secretary of State's advisers in the future will advise him upon every conceivable question. That is not the case now, and I cannot imagine that it will be the case in future. The Secretary of State's Council advises him to-day upon two categories of cases, namely, questions affecting the revenues of India and questions affecting the public services. I do not suppose that any Secretary of
State ever has consulted or ever would consult his Council upon such questions as those mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition—the appointment of a Viceroy, or—

Mr. LANSBURY: Why not?

Sir S. HOARE: It is not the way the India Office and the Council of India are organised. The Secretary of State has his other advisers, but this particular type of adviser, the Council, is there to advise him upon revenue and service questions. It is not intended that the Secretary of State should consult his advisers about the appointment of a Viceroy or about the appointment of Governors. If he wants to talk to them individually he can talk to them individually, but it is not the object for which his advisers or his Council exist. He has his permanent advisers at the India Office and it is to them that he would go to refer general questions. That confirms me in the view that, considering the scope of the duties of these advisers, it is much better to leave the hands of the Secretary of State free. It may be in future that there will be one woman member amongst his advisers. It may be that there will be three or four or even five women. It may be that in future the Secretary of State will be a woman. There is nothing to stop it. But that does not shake me in my view that it is much better to leave the Secretary of State's hands free. Moreover all these great women's issues are not at stake in the way that has been suggested this evening.
The main responsibility for improving the social and economic condition of women must be with Indians themselves, in the Federal Government, and more particularly in the Provincial Governments. In order to bring that responsibility home to Indians we are giving women in India 6,000,000 votes instead of the 100,000 or so votes that they have now. It is along that line that the future progress of the women of India mainly lies, and it is not along the line of insisting that women shall be upon a Council that has to deal with questions 99 per cent. of which have no connection whatever with the social and economic problems. That being so, I suggest to the Committee that we might now come to a decision.
We have had a very long debate on the question. I do not want to impose the closure on any one who wishes to speak, but we have covered the field very widely, and my strong advice to the Committee is in this matter to keep' the Secretary of State's hands free.

10.3 p.m

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I have listened very carefully to the speech of the Secretary of State, and I begin to wonder what in fact will be the function of this Council of his, if his view of it is what I presume it to be. Our argument is just this: Whatever functions his advisers are called upon to perform, we think that amongst those advisers one at least should 'be a woman. The functions must be fairly comprehensive because we are providing in this very Clause something like £1,500 a year as a salary for each of these people. Therefore surely their tasks cannot be entirely nominal.

Sir S. HOARE: I never suggested that they were nominal?

Mr. JONES: They must be substantial. If so, the case is strengthened for the inclusion of a woman, and the more substantial they are the stronger in our judgment is the case for representation of women on that body of advisers. The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) asked why we made a fuss, because we are amply met in the words of the first line, where there occurs the word "persons." That is quite true. Once those words are embodied there is nothing to prevent a Secretary of State from appointing a woman, or two or three women, if he thinks fit. But the practice has been not to appoint women to these posts, and because our past experience leads us to the conclusion that the tendency will be to continue to appoint men, we want to insert something in the Clause to ensure that one woman shall be included in that body.
The Noble Lady, the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) argued that there was very little that could be done by this body. The 'Secretary of State himself argued a few minutes ago that in practice the Secretary of State has never consulted his advisers concerning the appointment of the Governor-General or Governors; but there is nothing in the law to prevent him consulting these people, and it might be a good departure in practice if he started
to consult them. Suppose in practice he were to consult the Governor-General or the Governors as to the extent of appointments. Look at the vast field he has to deal with there. I do not like the argument of dividing subjects into women's subjects and men's subjects. But suppose we invite women to look at these appointments from the point of view of women's subjects only. Take that vast area of the Governor of the excluded areas. The Federal Assembly has nothing to do with it. The Provincial Assemblies have nothing to do with it. It is an area of responsibility entirely reserved to the Governor-General or the Governor, as the case may be, and if the Secretary of State in his wisdom, not by law, began the practice of consulting his advisers as to whom would be the appropriate person in India to exercise these functions, surely a woman would have a good deal to say concerning the appropriateness of that person because of the vast responsibility that the Governor of the excluded areas has for women and children.
Take another side of this problem. There is Clause 250, and as you said yourself, Sir Dennis, that is one of the most important functions which falls to the Secretary of State, the recruitment to the Civil Service. My right hon. Friend said that there is no movement in India at this moment so hopeful for the future as the woman's movement. All over India we see women and particularly young women taking an increasing share in social problems and discussing public questions. Whatever our views may be in this House, we should stimulate this growing interest among women in the discussion of public questions and an important impetus to that movement would be if for the first time in our lives the Secretary of State were called upon by law to appoint women to this central body of advisers. I take the same view as my right hon. Friend does. I entirely object to the conception that women should be appointed to these positions because of certain women's questions and women's interests only. I regard women's rights for participation in these functions as citizen rights, not merely as women's rights. Women have just as much right of claiming to have their voice heard on any problem as men have, and we therefore argue that, whatever function this body of Ministers performs, that function
should be participated in by women as much as by men. For that reason, we think the case is. overwhelmingly in favour of the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) has submitted to the Committee.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. DONNER: As a bachelor, I should like to say one word on the subject. As a Conservative opponent of this Bill, it is not often I have the' pleasure of supporting the Secretary of State, and I was therefore all the more delighted to hear his speech to-night. May I just remind the Committee for the last time that all the Secretary of State asked was not to have his hands tied. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) who moved this Amendment gave as practically the main reason for it the great rise in the advance made by women in India; that now Indian women go about in Bond Street, and in aeroplanes, and remain no longer in purdah. I would ask the hon. Member to take into consideration that possibly women in purdah would have a great deal more influence than they would have spending their money in Bond Street and their time in aeroplanes.

Viscountess ASTOR: That is what a bachelor says.

Mr. DONNER: At least I attended the Debate from the beginning before I intervened. I ask the hon. Member to-approach this question from an oriental point of view and to keep his mind a little more closely to the circumstances and conditions of the East, and not so closely to the circumstances and conditions of the West. I have listened to him on many occasions. He has always struck me as the kind of man who would climb the Himalayas in evening dress. He never will keep his mind closely to the facts. Then we have my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) who, speaking in support of the Amendment, said that after all it would only be one woman out of six. I would like to draw his attention to the fact that it may be one out of three, and does he really think it beyond that woman to worm herself round the other two? In that case, her influence would he far greater than if it were merely one woman out of six. I do hope the Secretary of State will with-
stand this Amendment, and will not give way to this clamour. We have heard so much about these claims of women. There can be too much of this woman business.

The CHAIRMAN: I am only going to make one remark. I do ask the Committee to bear with me if I remind them that under the arrangement under which they are working it is clear to me that, considering the time that we have taken on Amendments to-night—although not for one moment am I suggesting the time has been occupied by obstruction—we shall be seriously behind with our time-table.

Mr. LANSBURY: It is very unfortunate that when an Amendment of this kind from this side is being discussed —I think we did not start until about 9 o'clock—

The CHAIRMAN: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. It seems to me we shall be getting into a discussion—perhaps it was my fault—which would be quite out of order unless there is a Motion to report Progress, which I hope we can avoid. I have never had the slightest intention of trying to curtail unduly the Debate on this or any other Amendment, but there seems to be a certain amount of uneasiness in the Committee on both sides of the question as to whether we should close this discussion or not. It was because of that apparent difference of opinion between hon. Members that I desired just to make one small point. It is not my duty, and I am not proposing to go any further than that, but I merely remind hon. Members of the arrangement under which we are working, and which I have to do my best to help.

10.15p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I do so in order to have the position on this matter made clear. I think we must all be a little clear. I think we must all be a little more patient with each other. We all sympathiese with the each other. We all sympathise with the Secretary of State in the tremendous task which has been imposed upon him, but I must point out that again and again those of us who sit on these benches have felt that we would like to
take part in the discussion of Amendments moved from the other side but have purposely refrained from doing so in order that Debate should not be unduly prolonged. This is an Amendment about which some of us feel very strongly, and I do not think that we have occupied an undue amount of time. I should not have intervened but for the impatience which has expressed itself on the part of some of those who have spent hours and hours in raising other questions during these discussions and also in view of the fact that on Friday we had a prolonged discussion on a Motion to report Progress. I have only moved this Motion to put myself in order in making those remarks and, having done so, I am prepared to withdraw it if it is an abuse of the Rules to do so. I place myself in your hands, Sir Dennis.

10.17 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: As the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to put it in that way, perhaps I may be allowed by courtesy of the Committee to add a. few words. I wish to acknowledge frankly the truth of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about himself and his friends. I know they have often refrained from intervening in order to save time. My only regret is that observations of mine, which I assure the right hon. Gentleman were made without any partisan view, should have led to any outside discussion, however short. I say no more on the subject, except to put the question to the Committee I do report Progress and ask leave to sit again and to say that the right hon. Gentleman has asked leave to withdraw that Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

10.18 p.m.

Major MILNER: There is one point in relation to this question which has not been mentioned. It is one of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State to deal with the matters of franchise referred to in Clause 273. That Clause enables His Majesty in Council to make certain provisions on the advice of the Secretary of State, and these may include provisions in regard to those qualifications which entitle persons to vote at elections, the preparation of electoral rolls and so
forth. Therefore, it will be one of the functions of the Secretary of State to decide whether or not the vote shall be extended to women in India, and it is of the utmost importance that he should have a woman adviser in connection with that matter, in addition to the other matters mentioned by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rath-bone). Speaking as one of her constituents, may I say that I am in entire agreement with her speech, and I am surprised that the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Athol') should have left the Committee at a time when a question affecting women was under discussion—taking advantage of the argument that because certain matters have been handed over, lock, stock and barrel, to the Indians, there is no point in pressing for an Amendment of this kind. I submit that there is a point in it, if only for the reason that it affects the question of the women's vote which must be the basis of any advance in the position of women in India. For that reason alone the right hon. Gentleman ought to agree to at least one woman being a member of the body which is to advise him on any and every matter which he cares to submit to it.

10.20 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: I do not like voting against the Government on a Bill on which it has shown such courage and vision, but I feel I must do so on this Amendment. I would say to the Secretary of State that I know there is no man in the House who has been more consistent than he has in fighting for the rights of women, long before many Members of this House took what I consider to be the right view on this subject, the view entirely opposite to that taken by the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and Western (Duchess of Atholl). The Noble Lady never sees straight about women, and women who fail to see straight about the women's question seem to be afflicted with a sort of blind staggers when they come to other great questions. I see the point that the Secretary of State has made, but I think it will help the whole status of the women of India if we pass this Amendment, and that is the real reason for doing it. It is very important, because the Simon Commission and every Commission on the subject has said the same thing, that the social progress and stability of Indians depends a great deal
on the attitude of the women of India. It would be morally a great thing for the women of India if we passed this Amendment, and for that reason I deeply regret that the Secretary of State could not agree to it. I shall have to vote against him on this Amendment, but I hope it will be the only time on this Bill.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I have spoken so infrequently on this Bill that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for taking up a moment or two on this Amendment. The Secretary of State would not have so much reason to complain against the Debate being prolonged if he himself were a little more flexible. It would have been easy for him to accept the Amendment without having done any violence to the structure of the Bill. He would not have handicapped himself substantially, because it would have been easy to select a woman quite as capable as any of the men who are members of the council. It is no use his saying that his hands would be tied by suggesting that one member should be a woman. I was brought to my feet by what I considered to be the supercilious and arrogant speech of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Donner). The hon. Member suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxstowe (Mr.Cocks) would, I think he said, approach this Eastern question with a Western mind. I understand the hon. Member takes the line that the Indians are unfitted to govern themselves, and we should therefore approach the problem with an Oriental mind.

Mr. DONNER: I never said anything of the kind. The only thing I have said is that I have opposed this Bill because it tries to deal with the future government of India on Western and not on Oriental lines.

Mr. BEVAN: Which means, of course, that We must not give to the Indian people a small measure of self-government. That is what he objects to. I have not seen him come to the House with a turban on yet.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, I am sure, will not develop this into an argument on the Bill.

Mr. BEVAN: I am replying to a statement that my hon. Friend was the sort of Member who would climb the
Himalayas in evening dress and was bringing to bear on this Bill a point of view wholly inadequate to deal with this problem. I suggest that what we are attempting to do here, and attempting honestly, is to extend to the women of India some encouragement to take part in the affairs of their own country. We are trying to raise the status of the Indian women. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State indicated that under this Bill we were extending the franchise to 6,000,000 women in place of 100,000. There are 131,000,000 women in British India alone and 6,000,000 of them are to have votes. It is a fantastic proposition to suggest that you are giving them equal status by giving 6,000,000 of them votes. No one can suggest that we approach the women's question with dispassionate minds. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman does. I am sure that I do not. I have been in public life for a number of years, and I must admit that I am prejudiced in public administration against the participation of women. I cannot help myself, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot help himself. We are far too prejudiced to be able to decide this matter, and the women are entitled to ask for legislative protection against our prejudices. I have never heard an intellectual justification for the unfair position women occupy in public life. I cannot advance any intellectual proposition which will bear examination. Women have an equal status because of the prejudices of the males—

Mr. DONNER: This is not a question of women in public life, but whether a woman should be selected as one of the advisers to the Secretary of State.

The CHAIRMAN: I must really ask the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A.Bevan) to stick to the point. If he raises another point, it is a temptation to some other hon. Member to pursue it.

Mr. BEVAN: The argument that has been advanced is that, if the right hon. Gentleman were free to select a woman, there would be a demand for more than one woman. Every one knows that to be "baloney." The position occupied by women in public life in Great Britain is an answer to that. Women are never selected on equal terms with men, because the selectors are usually men, and they are invariably biassed. Consequently, the women are entitled to ask that they shall have a statutory protection against the prejudice and bias of the men. It is undoubtedly correct that women do not take part in public affairs in the same self-reliant way as men. They suffer from a grievous disability; they feel an inferiority complex in public life. I think that it is universally held by psychologists that an over-assertion is a sign of an inferiority complex, and no one is a better example than the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). I think that it will be admitted that women do not take part in public affairs with the same self-reliance as men. They suffer under great conventional disabilities, and that is all the more reason why they should be given encouragement, all the more reason why we should put more and more women in charge of public affairs, in order that we may to some extent dilute the unfortunate examples we have in some of the women at present engaged in public affairs. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has not given the sympathetic consideration to this Amendment which he ought to have done, and I, and I am sure my hon. Friends, make no apology to the Committee for having detained them.

Question put "That those words be there inserted".

The Committee divided; Ayes, 49;Noes,206

Division No. 147.]
AYES.
[10.32 p.m.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Foot, Dingle(Dundee)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Banfield, John William
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Batey, Joseph
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Bernays, Robert
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Lansbury, Rt. Hon George


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lawson, John James


Brown, C. W. E.(Notts., Mansfield)
Grenfell, David Roes (Glamorgan)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Buchanan, George
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick


Cleary, J. J.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Logan, David Gilbert


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lunn, William


Daggar, George
Harris, Sir Percy
McEntee, Valentine L.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
McGovern, John


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Holdsworth, Herbert.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
John, William
Mainwaring, William Henry


Milner, Major James
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
White, Henry Graham


Paling, Wilfred
Rothschild, James A. de
Wilmot, John


Rathbone, Eleanor
Smith, Tom (Normanton)



Rea, Walter Russell
Tinker, John Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Patrick, Colin M.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Gault, Lieut.-col. A. Hamilton
Penny, Sir George


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P.G.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Albery, Irving James
Goff, Sir Park
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Allen, William(Stoke-on-Trent)
Gower, Sir Robert
Petherick, M.


Apsley, Lord
Graves, Marjorie
Peto, Sir Basil E.(Devon, Barnstaple)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Greene, William P. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Assheton, Ralph
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Potter, John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grimston, R.V.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Bainlel, Lord
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ramsay, T. B. W.(Western Isles)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Bateman, A. L.
Harbord, Arthur
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Rankin, Robert


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Blindell, James
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Boulton, W. W.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Reld, William Allan(Derby)


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.
Remer, John R.


Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Horbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Briscoe, Captain Sir William
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S.J.G.
Rickards, George William


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Robinson, John Roland


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hornby, Frank
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hudson, Capt. A.U.M. (Hackney. N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Burghley, Lord
Hunter. Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Burnett, John George
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Butler, Richard Austen
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Salt, Edward W.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G.(Burnley)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Castlereagh, Viscount
Jesson. Major Thomas E.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Shaw, Helen B (Lanark, Bothwell)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Kerr, Lieut.-Cot, Charles (Montrose)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Christie, James Archibald
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Smith, Sir J. Walker (Barrow-In-F.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Knox. Sir Alfred
Smith, Sir Robert(Ab'd'n & K'dlne, C.)


Colman, N. C. D.
Lees-Jones, John
Somervell, Sir Donald


Cook, Thomas A.
Leighton. Major B. E. P.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Cooke, Douglas
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Soper, Richard


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Liddall, Walter S.
Spans, William Patrick


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Stanley, Rt. Hon Lord (Fylde)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Stevenson, James


Cranborne, Viscount
Loftus, Pierce C.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Craven-Ellis, William
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Strauss, Edward A.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Cross, R. H.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Sutclifle, Harold


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
McKie, John Hamilton
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davies. Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Todd, A. L.S.(Kings win ford)


Denman, Hon. R.D.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dickle. John P.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Donner, P. W.
Martin, Thomas B.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Doran, Edward
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Eastwood. John Francis
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Eillston, Captain George Sampson
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Eimley, Viscount
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Munro, Patrick
Wolmer, Rt. Hon, Viscount


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Evans, Capt. Arthur(Cardiff, S.)
Nicholson, Godfrey(Morpeth)



Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Lieut.-Colonel Sir. A. Lambert Ward


Flint, Abraham John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
and Dr. Morris-Jones.


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Orr Ewing, I. L.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 150, line 3, after "State," to insert, "shall be Indian subjects and the remainder."
The object of this Amendment is to make provision for the direct representation of Indian subjects on the Advisory Council. The Bill represents an advance in the scheme of self-government for
India, and plainly it is one of its virtues that Indian citizens shall be given a larger measure of influence in the government of their country. We believe that this presents a favourable occasion for the insertion of that opportunity in the Bill. On the previous Amendment we discussed the nature of the functions performed by the Council, and the question arose whether the Secretary of State would rely very much upon the contact and relations between himself and a body so appointed; but, whatever functions are performed by this Advisory Council, it has been provided in previous Clauses of the Bill that, when the Secretary of State is required to consult them, he shall have the concurrence of the Advisory Council before he is able to perform the functions allotted to him.
In these circumstances it is important that the Advisory Council shall be representative, as far as it, can be, of the Indian people, and one outstanding advantage of that position would be that it would give confidence to the people of India. If we wish to secure the good will and concurrence of the people of India in this scheme, provision must be made for them to be directly represented wherever their influence may be felt, and it would be a very great advantage to the Secretary himself to be able to consult, in these very important matters, with people who not only have the confidence of the people of India, but, special knowledge of the conditions of their own country. The Clause as it stands requires special knowledge on the part of the Advisory Council, and, if that is an indispensable condition in the case of British citizens, such knowledge and experience and personal service can certainly be better provided by people who are themselves Indians, and who know Indian questions from the standpoint not only of a stranger who has served in the country, but of people who have felt and experienced in their own persons the disabilities of government by an alien people. The question of the capability of one special service certainly requires the presence of Indians on this Council.
There is another point which must be considered. A great deal of lip service has been given to the Indianisation of the Services, and one would expect that, if Indianisation is to increase progressively, there should be a point where
the Indianisation of the scheme of government itself should take place. This is a contribution which we offer towards the Indianisation of the Services to make an opportunity for the Indian people to be represented on the Council, the body of advisers who are to represent the Secretary of State for India, and the way in which he is to perform his functions. There are arguments which would keep the Committee in session for the whole of the night and for a considerable time to come on the few words of the Amendment which we are moving. There are vital principles involved in the Amendment, but we do not wish to detain the Committee too long. We believe that the claim is rightly made on behalf of the people of India, and in their interests, and that it will maintain and promote the confidence of the people in this Bill arid be in the interest of the Secretary of State himself. If he is to have advice, there can be no argument against the provision of advice from the people on the spot who know and have experience. We are limiting, for the purpose of this Amendment, the representation of the people of India to 50 per cent. of the membership of the Council, and we hope that the Secretary of State will be able to make such a concession and meet us on this Amendment.

Viscount WOLMER: On a point of Order. May I ask if the term "Indian subjects" is in order? What does the term mean?

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order, but a point which might arise in the course of the Debate.

10.47 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I hope very much that the Amendment will not be pressed for the following reasons. We have never in any way, as far as I know, drawn a distinction in the matter of appointments between British and Indians, and I think that it would be a great and unnecessary mistake to do so now. As things are now, there is no statutory enactment under which the Secretary of State is forced to appoint a certain number of Indians to his Council. In actual practice he always does appoint Indians to his Council. At the present moment I have three very valuable Indian colleagues in my office. It is, therefore, in the first place, unnecessary to make a statutory enactment of this kind, and
secondly, it is objectionable to draw for the first time a distinction in a Statute between British and Indians, and for these reasons I hope very much that the Amendment will not be pressed.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, 204.

Division No. 148.]
AYES.
[10.50 p.m.


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John


Batty, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mainwaring, William Henry


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major James


Buchanan, George
John, William
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cleary, J. J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Wilmot, John


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Paling and Mr. D. Graham.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C.(Blk'pool)
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T.(Leeds, W.)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Albery, Irving James
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Fleming, Edward Lasceiles
Martin, Thomas B.


Apsley, Lord
Flint, Abraham John
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Assheton, Ralph
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ays)


Balniel, Lord
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Moreing, Adrian C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Bateman, A. L.
Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Pertsm'th, C.)
Graves, Marjorie
Morrison, William Shepherd


Bernays, Robert 
Greene, William P. C.
Munro, Patrick


Blindell, James
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon John
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Boulton, W. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).
Nunn, William


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Grimston, R. V.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Bracken, Brendan
Gunston, Captain D. W.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Patrick, Colin M.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Sir George


Broadbent, Colonel John
Harbord, Arthur
Percy, Lord Eustace


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hartington, Marquess of
Petheriek, M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastte)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Potter, John


Burghley, Lord
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Burnett, John George
Henderson, Sir Vivian L.(Chelmsford)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Butler, Richard Austen
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Herbert,Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Castlereagh, Viscount
Holdsworth, Herbert
Ramsden Sir Eugene


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Rankin, Robert


Cazalet, Capt. V. A.(Chippenham)
Hornby, Frank
Rea, Walter Russell


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Hewitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Christle, James Archibald
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackey, N.)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Remer, John R.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Colman, N. C. D.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cook, Thomas A.
James, Wing-Com. A.W.H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rots Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rothschild, James A. de


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Cranborne, Viscount
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Craven-Ellis, William
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Crooke, J. Smedley
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Salt, Edward W.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Samuel, M.R.A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Croom-Johnson., R. P.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Dickle, John P.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Smiles, Lieut-Col. Sir Walter D.


Donner, P. W.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-In-F.)


Doran, Edward
Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Smith, Sir Hobert (Ab'd'n & dine, C.)


Eastwood, John Francis
Loftus, Pierce C.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R
Spens, William Patrick


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Stevenson, James


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McKie, John Hamilton
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Stourton, Hon John J.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray f.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sutcliffe, Harold
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourno)
Wells, Sydney Richard
Womersley, Sir Walter


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
White, Henry Graham



Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, s.)
and Major George Davies.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 150, line 23, to leave out "either" and to insert "the Commons."
If hon. Members will look at Subsection (4) they will see that there is imposed the disability that a person shall not be an adviser to the Secretary of State if he sits or votes in either House of Parliament. I apologise that I only handed in this Amendment to-day but it was only last night that I noticed this somewhat unusual disqualification in the Bill. We are all familiar with Bills which impose a disqualification on Members of this House from being members of certain public bodies, but I was not aware that prior to this Bill we had imposed a disqualification on a Peer sitting on a certain type of public body. I am told that in previous Bills affecting the Government of India this curious disqualification has existed. If it has existed in the past I do not think that it ought to continue to exist. We have analogies at the present time which I think conclusive. The First Commissioner lf Police of the Metropolis, quite obviously, ought not to be a Member of this House, but at the present time he happens to be a Peer. As a Member of the other House he does not hesitate to take his seat, and nobody would regard it as improper for him to do so. Lord Cavan, who I think is a Peer of the United Kingdom, was formerly Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and I think I am right
in saying that the present Chief of the Imperial General Staff is a Peer. Several of our Judges are Peers, and occasionally without hesitation these judicial gentlemen take part in debates in the House of Lords. One Friday afternoon recently another place outshone this place in the publicity it obtained through a very attractive debate that took place between the supreme head of our judicial system, namely, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief—

It being Eleven of the Clock The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL GALLERY (OVERSEAS LOANS) BILL. [Lords.]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.